Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2001/05/14/objectifying_offense.php
Monday, May 14, 2001
Throughout my time at Dartmouth, the most feared word in the campus vocabulary has been 'offensive.' Offensive speech, offensive actions, offensive lecturers, offensive groups are discovered every term and routinely excoriated for their offensive nature. Rarely is any attempt made to define what we mean by what is offensive or why it is such an unholy and unacceptable state of affairs.
On those occasions when such an attempt is made, offensiveness is usually linked to racism, sexism, etc., none of which are ever defined in a meaningful way themselves. It is possible, though not probable, that this may be changing. This Monday a host of groups led by the Student Assembly are sponsoring 'Let's Cut the $hit,' a discussion on the very topic of what is offensive. Another such discussion sponsored by several Greek houses is planned for the preceding Thursday, before this issue goes to press, yet sadly after my deadline so I may not report on its results.
Regardless of the success or failure of these discussions, the time has clearly come for a clear statement of what is offensive on this campus. Consensus on this issue is undoubtedly impossible. That does not alter, however, the fact that one conception is correct, and others are not. It is my intention to offer a conception that I believe falls far closer to the truth than any currently in use at Dartmouth.
Far too often at the College, things are damned as offensive because individuals, or groups of individuals, are offended by them. This purely literal meaning of the term is accurate up until the point, so routinely crossed, when that meaning is used to condemn the offensive party. I find it offensive when I read the absurd and slanderous generalization, 'Frats Rape,' written on the sidewalk. It would be even more absurd for me to claim that those who wrote it are offensive and must be punished however, than it was for them to write it.
This standard admits far greater abuses of common sense. Christian Fundamentalists believe homosexuality is offensive to God and man. Are homosexuals then to be deemed offensive? Are mixed race couples offensive because a whole assortment of bigots is offended by so-called miscegenation?
Obviously this is absurd, yet it is the same standard in place at Dartmouth. Alpha Chi Alpha fraternity and Delta Delta Delta sorority were castigated on this campus for daring to hold a Lu'au Party, for no other reason that because certain students of Hawaiian descent were offended. This despite the fact that the Lu'au has become a part of American culture at every beach club, particularly in Hawaii where it is used by whites and natives both as a tourist attraction, and also despite the fact that a majority of Hawaiians feeling the need to comment on the situation denied that the Lu'au Party was offensive. Is this less ridiculous than my previous examples? Yes. By a great deal? No.
Those words, actions and groups that we attack for being 'offensive' must begin to be objectively, and not subjectively, so. In other words, simply being offended does not grant one the right to label another offensive. The community as a whole can and does set up certain basic standards of acceptable behavior, and when those are breached, by all means let the cannons roar. But a small group of angry students should not automatically be granted victim status, and their 'oppressors' deemed 'offensive' unless those actions of the latter are actually offensive by an objective and reasonable standard.
The recent history of the College clearly shows us the distinction between these two conceptions of offensiveness. The Lu'au party is a clear example of an event that gave offense to some without being the least bit offensive in an objective sense. The Indian symbol is, I believe, another. Objectively speaking, it is a respectful symbol of a culture as it was when Dartmouth was founded, not, as some would apparently have it, as it is today. It is not designed to express the be all and end all of all Native American cultures, anymore than the Cornhusker is all that it means to be a Nebraskan. It is a symbol that a vast majority of tribal leaders actually living on reservations believe to be perfectly acceptable and, according to some, laudable. Subjectively, some people are offended by it. To excoriate those who choose to where it on a t-shirt as being 'offensive' as a result of this, however, is ridiculous.
Context is crucial to such an objective understanding. Contrary to popular belief, how an action or statement is intended is crucial to whether or not it should be deemed offensive. If my friend jokingly calls me a penny-pinching kike in an argument, than it is not, nor should it be, offensive to me. I will happily respond right back by describing him as potato-loving mick, or whatever the appropriate slur is. If an acquaintance approaches me and says the same thing, then I will be offended, and he will have, objectively, been 'offensive.' The intent makes all the difference.
This is true even if a total stranger overheard my friend call me a kike. He or she may well be offended by that statement, but only because of their ignorance of the context. If an overheard private conversation offends someone, that does not make it offensive as a result. On a macro scale, the opposite of this theory brought us the assault upon Sigma Phi Epsilon for the so-called 'Cuban Party.' In reality a Will Smith Miami party, totally inoffensive by any objective standard, this became a campus controversy because a non-member saw a house blitz encouraging brothers to 'dress as your favorite Cuban.' The Cuban in question, a brother in the house, was notorious for his Will Smith-appropriate wardrobe. Taken out of this context, however, Sig Ep became a bastion of anti-Latino racism. Was it racist only because the accuser was offended by something he had absolutely no understanding of?
This is not to say there are no actual incidences of offensiveness at the College. 'The Zetemouth,' for example, contained language regarding women that any reasonable person would regard as offensive. Anti-Semitic graffiti has appeared on campus from time to time, the offensiveness of which is obvious. But all too often, we treat as offensive things that simply aren't, in any objective view of the word.
Even more so, we tend to magnify things which are somewhat offensive, or offensive in part, to an entirely extravagant level, devaluing the very real offense that occurs. The 'Ghetto Party' is a prime example. In concept, the Gangsta Party was designed as a theme based on the gangsta rap videos in vogue at the time. Objectively speaking, this was not offensive. At the actual event however, certain partygoers' costumes unmistakably crossed the line, particularly one woman who came dressed as a pregnant 'crackwhore.' But in the uproar that followed, the original inoffensive nature of the party was forgotten, and the entire event was lumped, newly named the 'Ghetto Party,' into a vast offense, quickly losing the interest of many who might have shared the offense at those objectively offensive costumes.
Similarly, our broad view of what is offensive makes us miss the point of many incidents on campus. In the recent 'Wah-Hoo-Wah' debacle at Psi Upsilon, charges of racism and sexism, neither of which were merited, excluded the critical point of several Dartmouth students threatening another. That was the absolutely unacceptable element of the event, not the use of a long time football cheer or the use of the term 'bitches,' commonly in use today in every segment of our society, including by many women themselves. Three students threatened another student. That's where the outrage should have focused. Instead, this became an issue of offensiveness that was dubious at best and certainly less important than the underlying issue of the implicit threat.
Not only is this sense of victimization that seems to thrive on campus anytime someone is offended by anything bad for the community, it's not even useful to the individuals who are offended. Campus activists have recently decried the cycle of 'incident, response, inaction' on this campus. They quite miss the point in doing so. The real cycle is usually incident, response out of all proportion to the incident, realization by the vast majority that the incident wasn't that offensive, inaction. The ridiculous rhetorical attacks and demands for vengeance by the offended parties are so overblown as to obscure the truly offensive aspects of an incident in the minds of a community growing weary of charges so outrageous that they seem unrelated to what actually happened.
In the end no one is served by this attitude that every student has a right not to be offended ever, that to be offended means someone must have been offensive. We, as a community, would be far better served by judging what is offensive rationally and objectively with a clear view of the context in which we are dealing. That will not only spare large numbers of perfectly innocent individuals from campus, and sometimes administrative condemnation, for the universal sin of having offended other sensibilities and will allow us all to focus on those problems of offensive behavior that are legitimately destructive to the College.
No doubt this column will have offended some readers. To those, I make you this bargain: take advantage of your God-given right to be offended, write me an angry blitz, castigate me to your friends, and I will do the same the next time you offend me. But don't label me as 'offensive,' or better yet racist or sexist, because in objective terms I'm none of those things and calling me them will only prove my point.