I have gone back and forth regarding this editorial all weekend.
On the one hand, I'm very glad to see the Baro address the issue at all. This incident involved not a columnist but a staff decision, so I can't say I'm all that surprised (but yes, still somewhat surprised) at the choice to cover the issue in some fashion.
On the other hand, I think it's kind of a weasely editorial. Let me explain.
The editorial starts with this:
We've spent a week talking about it, and it's created quite a stir on campus. The editorial board of The Daily Barometer felt that the matter required more than just simply running the column submitted by staff columnist Renée Roman Nose.
A few weeks ago, we ran a news story that included a graphic of a college-aged male wearing all black. He was also wearing black face paint. This graphic was designed in the name of school spirit, but it didn't come off that way to some members of our campus community.
It came off as offensive. It could be seen as a throwback to minstrel-era comedians mocking African heritage.
We explain this not in ignorance, but in order to pose a question.
A few things:
1. In the first paragraph, they note that they felt a greater response was needed than just Renee's column, but that doesn't explain why they held her column. We'll return to that decision later in the editorial.
2. They note that they are not explaining why the blackface is offensive out of ignorance - whose ignorance? It seems clear that the Baro staff was ignorant about this issue since they ran the photo in the first place. The ignorance of the reader? Well, if OSU students are so busy defending the black facepaint on Facebook, then it seems they are a wee bit ignorant as well. So - who is ignorant, again?
That sentence sounds like a way to weasel out of taking responsibility for the staff's own ignorance.
Moving on:
More than a week after this story ran in The Daily Barometer, Roman Nose submitted a column explaining and apologizing for the misdeed that the staff of the Barometer had perpetrated.
In literal shock and dismay that we hadn't heard about this issue before our columnist submitted something she intended to have printed, we chose - as an editorial board - to hold her column until further notice.
Holding Roman Nose's column was not a decision made to silence the voices of those offended. It was not a decision made to hide the something we did wrong.
It was a decision made so that we could appropriately and accurately respond to the campus community - with the opinions of Barometer staff members, community members and especially the opinions and understanding given to us by Renée Roman Nose.
OK. So the Baro's editorial board held the column because they were caught by surprise - due to their ignorance - and wanted to have a chance to formulate a response before they ran her column.
That's weaselly. And kind of pathetic. Again, we have a suggestion that the Baro staff was ignorant about what they did, reluctant as they may be to admit it. Second, we have a pretty sad use of their power: They held Renee's column because it would make them look bad, and they wanted a chance to come up with some sort of response before it was printed.
If I, as a columnist or reader, or as a subject of a news story, were to be in the same position, it's highly unlikely that the Baro would extend the same offer to me. I think this was a case of panicked CYA, and a shameful one at that, since the Baro's learning from Roman Nose's column hinged in no way on whether or not it had been printed. Better the Baro print her column when she submitted it and deal with the fact that they fucked up, stepping into the conversation when they learned enough to have something useful to say.
Also, the fact that they did not hear about this issue before the column's submission suggests a few things:
One, that they don't have any connections to the communities that get upset about things like racism on the front page, the implications of which are not good, since the communities were likely people of color and their anti-racist allies and friends.
Two, that people in said communities did not go the Baro staff with their concerns. Speaking from experience, I can safely suggest that this is the case because the Baro has historically been very unwelcoming to anyone the hyper-cliquish staff deems outsiders. Outsiders, of course, being anyone who is not friends with the staff.
Next, the editorial contains of the lamest statements I've ever heard:
Members of the community have asked how it is possible that we could have completely missed the boat on how that was offensive.
To this we ask, couldn't that be a good thing that the era of offensive mockery is now far enough behind us that it was not present in our active memory?
Could you display your privilege any more prominently? It's not quite inducing vomiting yet. But it's close.
Seriously.
Here's what I heard: "Isn't it a good thing we are so privileged to have no knowledge of blackface?"
Never mind the fact that every other year, some dumbshit fraternity makes national news for hosting a blackface party. That's just news - and why would the members of a newspaper's editorial board want to keep up on something as useless as news?
Or how about this: "Isn't it a good thing we are ignorant of this aspect of the history of racism in America?"
For fuck's sake, Baro. Just because you know something about history - be it blackface or the Armenian genocide of 1915 - does not mean you endorse or condone said historical fact.
Also, that is a profoundly anti-intellectual argument in that it portrays ignorance of history as a good thing. Coming from a newspaper located on a college campus, that's kind of....bad.
The fact that the editorial employs that poor of an argument shows just how badly they are grasping at any excuse not to own their ignorance on this one.
The editorial closes with a plea:
After a week of pondering and asking ourselves what the correct response would be, we understand the correct response is to open our minds, open our doors and hear what our campus is telling us. We understand that an apology for the unintentional offense was necessary.
Promoting a culture of fear and lack of inclusiveness goes against the lessons learned in difference, power and discrimination courses and the lessons we accumulate as contributing members of the campus community.
It is important for a thriving student media that all students participate in the conversation. Please, write a letter to the editor. Stop and visit the Barometer office. Give us a call.
We actually do want to hear what we do wrong. We want to improve as we strive to act professionally in working toward career goals.
I am of two minds about this.
On the one hand, I do not want to discard what I think is a genuine request on the Baro's part. This represents an opportunity for growth and learning, and that's good. I hope students take them up on this.
On the other, the Baro is constantly inviting people to come talk to them.... but they almost always fail to listen.
The Baro staff, in my experience, has always been a closed clique of people. I'm certainly not the only person to notice this. So historical experience makes me very skeptical of this newfound desire for openness.
Overall, I think the editorial was pretty poor on reasoning and responsibility. While it officially apologized, it tripped over itself to avoid any sort of blame (and perhaps the attendant consequences?), and it shows a dangerous lack of understanding on the relevant issues.
Plus, the decision to hold Roman Nose's column comes across - and was - a poor move designed almost solely to cover their collective asses.
The Baro needs to do better.
7 comments:
"To this we ask, couldn't that be a good thing that the era of offensive mockery is now far enough behind us that it was not present in our active memory?"
Isn't it awesome that we skipped English 101? And skipped half of African-American History 204? And slept through Film Studies 201? And have never, ever read a book? And that we were homeschooled throughout elementary school by our KKK uncle Roy? Seriously. I'm trying really, really hard to imagine a world in which someone could not have any idea about the history of blackface, let alone the idea that painting your face black and parading through the pages of the Baro would be okay, but I AM COMING UP SHORT. I know the term blackface from like 5th grade - which means it was probably in a mother-effing babysitters club book. I need to take a poll of twenty-somethings. Is it just random that I am familiar with this term? 'Cuz I skipped a lot of class and have a few crazy uncles of my own, yet I some how managed to grow up with this piece of history embedded in my brain. This is the silliest, and most hopeful fairy-tale world explanation ever.
I know. The phrase 'cognitive dissonance' comes to mind.
Also, the more I think about it, the more the editorial reads like this...
While the Baro staff may have been "learning about" (read: being yelled at by irate readers) the blackface issue for a week or two, it sounds like they were not thinking about it.
And that the editorial was written hastily late the night before it was published. Or hastily when they realized they couldn't really justify not running the column and that they had to so something.
Actually, a friend of mine pointed out that it was not until the GT ran a story that the Baro started to move on the issue.
I remain by my "I didn't know" comment. I seriously had never heard of blackface before. I've taken English 101 and guess what, I'm taking Ethnic Studies: African American history (ES223) right now and it hasn't came up! And we are in the time period where it WOULD come up (eary 1900s). A discussion of the actual editorial and blackface image on the Baro hasn't either. Maybe I'll ask about it on Wednesday.
And no I wasn't home-schooled.
And no I didn't take a film studies class.
They probably really just didn't know.
They should've addressed it about a week before the GT ran a story though. It doesn't take a week to "think about it." It may take a week to sit in an office and cross your fingers, pray it goes away, but my guess the thinking going on in the editorial staff involved, "This will just go away."
By the way, I went to the OSU v. Stanford game on Saturday. I didn't see anyone wearing a black afro, just an orange one. Students still painted their faces black.
I agree with both Roxy and Jen. I am absolutely incredulous as to how someone could NOT know about this, but I also understand completely that there is a TON of information out there and that even for someone who has spend a significant amount of time in relevant classes, this one particular historical fact many not come up.
And Roxy, I really think you are right about the Baro staff wanting this to go away.
Re-reading my earlier comment, I sound like quite an indignant little snod, sorry about that. It seems a little crazy to me that one person out of the 5-20 people that saw this before publication, not a single one was aware of the term. HOWEVER - I feel like common sense in the diverse world we live in should lead you to the conclusion that painting your face black and wearing an afro wig might, just maybe, be offensive.
I've seen the old films and know vaguely about it. However, when I saw the students dressed in all black and some painted black (including their upper bodies) not once did I think of blackface. I actually thought it was more like a funeral or something and would have rather they chose orange over black.
I guess I'm saying that the normal person who goes to Beaver games doesn't think of that as a first thought. I mean our colors are orange and black, so generally that's what we would think of because that's the context that we are currently in. A football game.
I think here something has to be said about intent. Clearly the intent had nothing to do with racism. Once they know people are offended it should stop. And of course being ignorant to it is no excuse, but intent should be in there somewhere.
I guess the question is, if they weren't taught racism then how would they know to recognize it. I mean its not like hate is something we're born with.
I don't know. It seems people are turning this into much more than what it really is.
How can you REALLY say anyone SHOULD have known something? Isn't there anything in our history that you don't know about that isn't very publicized these days that you should know about? Have you read the "people's history of the U.S." front to back?
Sounds like you're reaching a bit. They should apologize, not encourage that behavior again and use it as a learning experience. No need to take it too far.
Just my opinion.
So I thought I should update this post about my ES class. Brought it up and what did the black students in the class say? They were pissed at the Barometer for not running the column. Not mad at the blackface thing... I mean, they were upset about the afro-wearing blackfaced people, other than that they didn't seem to have a problem with the actual people painting their faces black as a show of college spirit. The focus of the entire 20-minute discussion was on the Barometer. It was the fact that the Barometer, who one kid said (and we all know), has a history of getting in these situations, and they managed to do it again instead of coming clean held her column. From what I gathered, most thought her column was a form of education about the history of blackface and should've been published a lot sooner.
Post a Comment