Thursday, June 08, 2006
Historical Razzy battles with censorship: a page from the Smith College archives
In college, my extracurricular activity was working for the school paper, The Sophian. This publication was a TOTAL shitshow, because we spent most of the time that we were "putting it to bed" drinking copious quantities of PBR and smoking pot in our unused darkroom. It was great fun. Without The Sophian I wouldn't have met LL Cool Jew, Wmania, or JerseyGirl, I wouldn't have discovered my calling for exhibitionism, and most importantly, I wouldn't have appreciated the cathartic joy of ranting and raving in a public forum. By my senior year, I was so good at this that I was given half of the Op/Ed page for my own column, appropriately titled "Angie's Weekly Rant," where I went off on whatever was pissing me off any given week. Last night I was leafing through my old clippings, and realized that many of them are along the lines of "fuck off, don't censor us." Given all the recent Paula James hijinks, I thought I would share some of my older work as evidence that I've been fighting the good fight for free speech for years now. This particular piece reflects my outrage at stupid Smith girls offended by a party that my house threw.
"Angie's Weekly Rant: Pimps and Hos Rule Smith"
Originally published in the Feb. 17, 2000 issue of The Smith College Sophian
By a Younger, Nicer, More Innocent Razzy
Last Saturday, Jordan House celebrated its second annual "Pimps and Hos" party. To the credit of the Jordan social chairs, the party was a great success, minus the stereo theft and multiple fire alarms at the conclusion of the evening.
Many of the revelers in attendance did not show any obvious objection to the theme of the party; to the contrary, almost everyone showed up either dressed in tight faux leopard or in a leisure suit with gold chains aplenty. However, unbeknownst to many of those in attendance, the theme was the source of a minor scandal.
Enter the Dean of Students, Mela Dutka, who informed the social chairs and residential life staff of Jordan House that the theme was offensive and degrading to women. Consequently, the party should not be advertised outside of Jordan House so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the complaint-happy political correctness police elsewhere on campus.
Ironically, the social chairs and head resident of Jordan were informed that their signs were demoralizing to women on the same day that the word "VAGINA" appeared in flaming red letters on the side of Seelye Hall, an occurrence considered to be either cute, funny, or even empowering by many of the women who saw it. Still, probably more women were offended by the big "VAGINA" than by the party theme "Pimps and Hos." The logic at work here is the same that allowed a mock slave auction to be a part of Celebration of Sisterhood, but considers a whimsical party theme too licentious and indecent for display on campus. I'm unclear as to why the word "VAGINA" as an advertisement is somehow acceptable where a lighthearted theme about the world's oldest profession is not. Is it because the "VAGINA" was an advertisement for a performance art piece, and as art is automatically not subject to the same rules as the advertisement for a party? Or because "VAGINA" splayed ostentatiously on the front of an academic building somehow celebrates women? Or is it because the college wants to crack down on the already pitiful party scene on this campus? Maybe some were concerned about the supposed "reputation" that keeps meriting inane discussion in the Smith Daily Jolt forum.
Logical reasoning suggests that if you censor "Pimps and Hos," and if you're interested in implementing your policies consistently, you should censor anything that smacks of degradation to women. Arguments could be made that anything from Coming Out Day chalkings to those "A Century of Women on Top" t-shirts in the bookstore suggest an image of women that offends at least one person. Are Smith students willing to compromise their freedom of expression because somebody has a problem with what they're saying? I seem to remember Smith pimping its openness, tolerance, and freedom in admissions brochures.
Let me share a personal example. Two years ago, I posed nude for the April Fool's edition of the Sophian. I did not consider this to be degrading or objectifying in any way whatsoever, or degrading to women in general. However, I'm certain that there were people on campus who found that centerfold insulting, vulgar, dehumanizing, or abhorrent to their moral opinions concerning women. That is not my problem. That is their problem. A person should not be held liable for the reactions of others, especially when those reactions are comprised only of hurt feelings or moral contempt.
We live in a society where freedom is a sacred tenet of our national identity. There are some risks that come with that freedom, such as the risk of being offended. For example, members of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups are free to peacefully demonstrate and distribute publications. I, like most Americans, am morally appalled by the beliefs these groups promote. Unless these groups commit a crime, however, they have the right to speak freely. I would rather endure being offended by skinheads than deprive everybody of their right to free expression because I can't cope emotionally with moral outrage.
At Smith, we deal with this issue on a daily basis. Politically conservative students say they feel their opinions are stifled because conservative views at this school are considered offensive or idiotic by many of their peers. At the same time, many conservative students are equally offended by certain aspects of the predominantly liberal climate on campus. No matter who you are or what you believe, offending someone at Smith is almost as easy as breathing.
I think the sense of humor is slowly being phased out of campus. The "Pimps and Hos" party was described by numerous postings in the Daily Jolt forum as great fun and an all-too-infrequent occurrence. I'm disappointed that neither the administration nor many students at Smith College no longer seem to appreciate the value of having a good time, resulting in the systematic stamping out of potentially insulting material before anyone's feelings get hurt. Students so easily offended should just grow up and deal with themselves. The world beyond Smith is full of disappointment, moral repugnance, and flat-out cruelty, and others will neither care nor be held accountable for an individual's feelings. The Dean of Students should realize that by coddling those who are offended and rushing to meet their demands, she and the college are not adequately preparing students for the coping skills they will need beyond Smith, for the rest of their lives.
By limiting content of communications between students, even in the form of advertising, this college is stifling open dialogue and free expression in every aspect of our residential life. I applaud the Jordan social chairs for continuing to plaster Jordan House itself with "Pimps and Hos" advertisements, despite the Dean's instructions to keep the signs off the rest of campus. I encourage all students to resist such mandates for censorship based on perceived offensiveness and support the right of every student and organization to speak freely. I praise those students who believe that it's better to be offended than to be told to shut up.
"Angie's Weekly Rant: Pimps and Hos Rule Smith"
Originally published in the Feb. 17, 2000 issue of The Smith College Sophian
By a Younger, Nicer, More Innocent Razzy
Last Saturday, Jordan House celebrated its second annual "Pimps and Hos" party. To the credit of the Jordan social chairs, the party was a great success, minus the stereo theft and multiple fire alarms at the conclusion of the evening.
Many of the revelers in attendance did not show any obvious objection to the theme of the party; to the contrary, almost everyone showed up either dressed in tight faux leopard or in a leisure suit with gold chains aplenty. However, unbeknownst to many of those in attendance, the theme was the source of a minor scandal.
Enter the Dean of Students, Mela Dutka, who informed the social chairs and residential life staff of Jordan House that the theme was offensive and degrading to women. Consequently, the party should not be advertised outside of Jordan House so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the complaint-happy political correctness police elsewhere on campus.
Ironically, the social chairs and head resident of Jordan were informed that their signs were demoralizing to women on the same day that the word "VAGINA" appeared in flaming red letters on the side of Seelye Hall, an occurrence considered to be either cute, funny, or even empowering by many of the women who saw it. Still, probably more women were offended by the big "VAGINA" than by the party theme "Pimps and Hos." The logic at work here is the same that allowed a mock slave auction to be a part of Celebration of Sisterhood, but considers a whimsical party theme too licentious and indecent for display on campus. I'm unclear as to why the word "VAGINA" as an advertisement is somehow acceptable where a lighthearted theme about the world's oldest profession is not. Is it because the "VAGINA" was an advertisement for a performance art piece, and as art is automatically not subject to the same rules as the advertisement for a party? Or because "VAGINA" splayed ostentatiously on the front of an academic building somehow celebrates women? Or is it because the college wants to crack down on the already pitiful party scene on this campus? Maybe some were concerned about the supposed "reputation" that keeps meriting inane discussion in the Smith Daily Jolt forum.
Logical reasoning suggests that if you censor "Pimps and Hos," and if you're interested in implementing your policies consistently, you should censor anything that smacks of degradation to women. Arguments could be made that anything from Coming Out Day chalkings to those "A Century of Women on Top" t-shirts in the bookstore suggest an image of women that offends at least one person. Are Smith students willing to compromise their freedom of expression because somebody has a problem with what they're saying? I seem to remember Smith pimping its openness, tolerance, and freedom in admissions brochures.
Let me share a personal example. Two years ago, I posed nude for the April Fool's edition of the Sophian. I did not consider this to be degrading or objectifying in any way whatsoever, or degrading to women in general. However, I'm certain that there were people on campus who found that centerfold insulting, vulgar, dehumanizing, or abhorrent to their moral opinions concerning women. That is not my problem. That is their problem. A person should not be held liable for the reactions of others, especially when those reactions are comprised only of hurt feelings or moral contempt.
We live in a society where freedom is a sacred tenet of our national identity. There are some risks that come with that freedom, such as the risk of being offended. For example, members of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups are free to peacefully demonstrate and distribute publications. I, like most Americans, am morally appalled by the beliefs these groups promote. Unless these groups commit a crime, however, they have the right to speak freely. I would rather endure being offended by skinheads than deprive everybody of their right to free expression because I can't cope emotionally with moral outrage.
At Smith, we deal with this issue on a daily basis. Politically conservative students say they feel their opinions are stifled because conservative views at this school are considered offensive or idiotic by many of their peers. At the same time, many conservative students are equally offended by certain aspects of the predominantly liberal climate on campus. No matter who you are or what you believe, offending someone at Smith is almost as easy as breathing.
I think the sense of humor is slowly being phased out of campus. The "Pimps and Hos" party was described by numerous postings in the Daily Jolt forum as great fun and an all-too-infrequent occurrence. I'm disappointed that neither the administration nor many students at Smith College no longer seem to appreciate the value of having a good time, resulting in the systematic stamping out of potentially insulting material before anyone's feelings get hurt. Students so easily offended should just grow up and deal with themselves. The world beyond Smith is full of disappointment, moral repugnance, and flat-out cruelty, and others will neither care nor be held accountable for an individual's feelings. The Dean of Students should realize that by coddling those who are offended and rushing to meet their demands, she and the college are not adequately preparing students for the coping skills they will need beyond Smith, for the rest of their lives.
By limiting content of communications between students, even in the form of advertising, this college is stifling open dialogue and free expression in every aspect of our residential life. I applaud the Jordan social chairs for continuing to plaster Jordan House itself with "Pimps and Hos" advertisements, despite the Dean's instructions to keep the signs off the rest of campus. I encourage all students to resist such mandates for censorship based on perceived offensiveness and support the right of every student and organization to speak freely. I praise those students who believe that it's better to be offended than to be told to shut up.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I go to Washington College, where Mela is now the Dean of Students, and she is being even worse here. Is there anything else you can tell me about her and her actions at Smith? I'm writing up a piece for our paper and would LOVE to have some info on her. You can email me at captivatingcognomen@gmail.com.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
