Democracy Project is upset by this incident. InstaPundit seems to think the suicide bomber might be anti-Semitic. But this is a Halloween party, no? In recent years, people dress up as positive things for Halloween, too (my boys were Pooh and Tigger) but I had thought the tradition was to dress up as scary, often nasty people. One of the kids in the neighborhood this year was dressed as a '20s gangster, complete with a plastic machinegun. Pirates are pretty common.
You're told to dress as someone scary. A suicide bomber is scary. It should probably be scarier than a skeleton or a ghost. Sounds like you did your Halloween duty. And I don't think that wearing a costume for Halloween endorses the likely sentiments of the person being depicted, be he pirate, bomber, gangster, or zombie.
Now there is a more complex argument, I suppose, that could be made: wearing a costume suggests that the depicted person's activity is a laughing matter. I take it that this would be a possible objection to people's dressing as Nazis for Halloween. I should say that I wouldn't object myself to people's dressing as Nazis for Halloween; still, I assume the sensible argument wouldn't be "by dressing as a Nazi you're endorsing Nazism" but "by dressing as a Nazi you're suggesting that it's OK to use Nazis as a subject of light-hearted fun." Yet even this isn't that persuasive an argument in my book. There are contexts in which light joking about suicide bombers or Nazis might be strikingly inapt; a Halloween party, on the other hand, doesn't seem to me to be one.
UPDATE: Instapundit asks: "Would a university President really pose for photos with someone in a Klan outfit, or wearing blackface? I find that hard to imagine. And if not, why is the suicide bomber outfit OK?"
Two thoughts: First, I would likewise defend someone who came to a party as a Klansman. Same theory — Klansmen are scary; Halloween is about scary costumes; Halloween is not about endorsing the characters you're dressing as. (I'm not keen on the blackface taboo, at least when used to forbid all attempts by whites to try to play black characters at parties; but for this post I'd like to focus on costumes that fit with the Halloween theme precisely because they represent scary evil characters.)
Second, I don't know the details of the pose with the university president, but let's not assume that she deliberated much about the matter. A Halloween party at the university president's house to which students are invited is likely to be a huge affair. I suspect that Saadi wasn't the first person who posed with her.
The president's main job at the party is not to police costume choices but to be nice to the attendees. If she's asked to pose with someone, the default reaction is "OK, let me get this over with quickly, and move on to mingle," not "Let me think about the person's costume to see whether it's suitable for a Picture With Moi." Even if you think that on careful reflection she should have said "No, I won't pose with you because I find your costume in bad taste," I doubt that careful reflection should be expected here.
And, no, I don't think that now that she has had time for careful reflection she should put out a formal apology / clarification / statement praising peace and distancing herself from terrorists or those who would wear inappropriate terrorist costumes. It's a student dressing up for a Halloween party, for heaven's sake.
FURTHER UPDATE: In the paragraph marked "First," I meant to include one more item, but with the lateness of the hour forgot. It may well be that dressing as a Klansman to a Halloween party would have caused a fuss, from a refusal to pose to protest marches to disciplinary measures. But because people have lost a sense of perspective as to some set of costumes doesn't mean that we should encourage them to do the same as to others. One can certainly condemn those who use a double standard (though it's a little harder if you're just conjecturing that they'd have a double standard, since you have only a hypothetical case to compare against). For the reasons I gave above, however, we shouldn't avoid double standards by having a single standard of outraged condemnation.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on the Penn Halloween Controversy:
- Ah, Yes, the Press Release:
- Dressing as a Suicide Bomber to a Halloween Party:
Of course, that was years before the PC police started sucking all the fun out of everything.
Next year, I'm going to Gutmann's Halloween bash dressed up as a Ku Klux Klansman! We'll see how eager she is to have her picture taken with me.
You can go see Ms. Gutmann with her happy suicide bomber here.
Anton.
But still, bad taste is not a criminal offense, I'd hardly go bothering the president over this, etc. Just one of those stories that makes you shake your head a little.
or if someone dressed up in nazi mufti had the hair and face paint from braveheart, that would be funny. or if you got all your gay friends together and wore baseball unis and called yourselves the "gay bashers."
yeah, maybe poor taste, but who really cares? whoever thinks there's an implicit endorsement of the underlying activity needs to go to the "special classes" in school. whoever thinks its in poor taste and that the poor taste is something THEY should in turn get worked up about needs to lighten up.
I guess this get Eugene off the list of suspects in Bob Crane's murder.
Wait until George Allen finds out that Harold Ford borrowed his stuff.
To the generation that actually fought the Nazis, it was quite OK to use Nazis as the subject of fun:
Der Fuehrer say, ve are der master race,
So Heil, pffft, Heil, pffft, right in der Fuehrer's face.
some relatives thought that a comedica portrayal of the nazis was wrong (never brought up mel brooks btw). iow, it made them more sympathetic - just bumbling good hearted boobs.
others thought that it was ok. after all, as steve martin says "comedy is not pretty"
In the photos, the "suicide bomber" is seen pretending to execute one student, and reading verse during another mock execution. I think he's doing just a tad more than simply wearing a costume, no?
Damn that Tim Whattley!
ummm.. I wouldn't be too sure, I mean this was at a university... no, I think its the lightheartedness that bothers some people. I thought the pictures were a little jarring. But, I certainly wouldn't condemn the university for allowing it, nor make a big fuss. Discuss -- its academia, we must always discuss. But not condemn if there is no need, and pretty much any Halloweeen costume should be okay. That is the whole point of the holiday - shock, joke, have a little fun, make a point, don't make a point, etc.
My Mohammed costume
KKK members, suicide bombers, and Nazis don't fall into this category. They're all things that either affect us in the real world, or are uncomfortably close to something which does. Of course, there's a bit of a gray area there, since the KKK and Nazis are pretty much nonexistent, but they were serious threats not long ago by historical standards, and they're still remembered as threats today and evoke reactions that, say, dressing up as Nero doesn't.
There's also the possibility that the person in the costume may have milder tendencies towards the kind of evil that he's dressed as. It's quite possible someone dressed as a suicide bomber is doing so to ridicule the idea that suicide bombers are bad. It's unlikely that someone dressed as a pirate is doing so out of sympathy with pirates.
I dare say he's impelled to.
If this had happened at a fraternity house, the PC cops would be in full cry. Any excuse to get a Greek organization off campus.
Different standards, I guess. I know.
Now, since the private unis have made a fetish of making feigned offense an actionable issue, sometimes even suspending the offender, we need somebody to come to the Office of Feigned Offense Reports and pretend to be offended. They have to act.
November 1st
November 2nd
That's mockery, not fun (or at least not only fun).
Absurd? I don't think so. But it wouldn't be a good assumption to operate under either; we shouldn't assume the worst just because we don't understand why it's particularly in the halloween spirit to dress up as a terrorist or suicide bomber. I don't personally get the humor or fun in dressing like a suicide bomber, does anybody here? Maybe somebody can explain it to me.
When people don't get the joke, I think they assume there is some sort of political point or motivation. Of couse that isn't always of even usually true, but it does seem to be a distinct possibility.
Yeah, but Charlie Chaplin was making fun of Hitler! We can all see the fun in that. In what way was the kid poking fun at sucidie bombers? Maybe he was, and certainly the pictures can't tell the whole story. But that doesn't appear to be his intent.
Were we having Hitler to our Halloween parties in WWII?
I think it was very poor judgment, and lacking in perspective about where we are as a country, and what happened to a fair number of U.S. citizens in NY, Pa., as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
It's pretty sick, actually. Sorry so many here don't get it.
Nazi jokes are a regular feature of Brooks' work, well beyond "The Producers." I seem to recall Brooks addressing the issue in what struck me as a sensible way.
Brooks' position was that the only effective way to take revenge on Hitler was to make him a laughing stock. What else are you going to do? Say that Hitler was a really bad guy? Everyone knows that. Reduce him to a figure in Jewish humor instead, and you strike a genuine blow.
I think there's something to that.
That rules out dressing as Dick Cheney, I guess.
But really, people -- poor taste? from an undergrad? When did such things start happening??? Must've been under Clinton.
Kudos to EV for acting like someone who lives in a free country.
Oh, and Mitch:
I'm going to go as Daniel Pearl's murderer next year, Zarqawi, and see how many yucks I get.
Might want to share your unique insight into the Pearl murder with the FBI or someone -- evidently this guy got framed.
But, I don't get my current events from Wikipedia, like you do, so I guess I'm shit out of luck.
Assuming your "correction" vis a vis Wikipedia, the one source for information on terrorists, I'll simply go as Daniel Pearl's beheader, anon., so there won't be confusion in the Wikipedia ranks.
I figured it would be redundant to post that since it's pretty much Eugene's point, but it seems some people need to hear it again.
That is exactly right.
As for dressing as Hitler, free speech--and it is expression--is often in bad taste. Criticize the way speech was exercised if you wish, but I hardly see cause for banning it. That New York high school administration could have turned the whole affair into an effective demonstration of freedom of speech and tolerance instead of despotism and repression (even if it is a private high school). But that would have taken good taste--and a little bit of imagination and perhaps courage, certainly far too much to ask.
Now, I don't know anything about Israel to know if this is true. Though I must I believe him.
Why, yes, he's also performing for a crowd. I assume you'd be similarly offended if a Halloween vampire pretended to suck someone's blood? Or if the realism issue bugs you, that someone dressed as a serial killer at a haunted house pretended to, say, chainsaw someone?
Just a suggestion, but playing Teh Terrorists card this hard is not a long-term strategy.
And as others have noted, it is really amusing to this libertarian to see the various commenter's deeply PC instincts kick in, to justify suppressing Evil Intent in a goofy holiday party, and even drumming up ways to assume that a costume choice == solidarity with the subject. If nothing else, it does demonstrate that postmodernism is dead, as an academic theory - now, it is just a cheap, neutral rhetorical gambit (and thank goodness).
By the way, in my more rebellious days I once dressed as a drug-dealing CIA agent (cheap suit, cheap sunglasses, bag full of white powder, nametag saying, "Hello my name is Bob Smith. Businessman, not CIA.") Query: did I break the non-existent rule or not?
and carry some beer, and have some hookers with you.
and maybe some bacon too
THEN you'll see outrage
As for your counter-examples, let's really talk realism. How about a student dressed as a Nazi guard pretending to execute a Jew? How about a student dressed in KKK regalia pretending to lynch someone?
Heh. Thought you said Amy Goodman for a sec.
The next year, the president's party took a distant second to a party where they were serving Guyana Kool Aid.
When the children go as witches, goblins, or zombies, are we suppossed to tell them that those things don't exist? What if a kid decided to go as Santa Claus?
I don't disagree, and I'm glad you don't either. We might mean different things by "attempt to suppress", I'm not sure. I mean efforts by some (nongovernmental) people to coerce other (nongovernmental) people to stop 'speaking'. I'm not claiming censorship.
As for your counter-examples, let's really talk realism. How about a student dressed as a Nazi guard pretending to execute a Jew? How about a student dressed in KKK regalia pretending to lynch someone?
I believe your examples were covered in postings above, at least to close proximity. As for me, I don't have an issue with that sort of thing on halloween, unless there's rather a lot of reason to assume it is a serious example of hatred (like, say, being performed in ernest, or at an event with a history of racist intent). Willfully missing the point for presumed political game seems to have become a widely used tactic recently, and I think that is not only sad, but a little self-belittling.
Like I said, I'm glad PoMo is over - now that partisan Republicans do it, we know it is nothing more than a dumb rhetorical tactic.
I guess it was a good thing I was playing a drug-BUYING CIA agent.
There is a consensus that Nazis who murdered millions were evil.
Therefore: To dress as a Nazi is not taken as a 'statement' of approval--so it is assumed as a parody on Halloween, though perhaps not at other times.
There is no consensus, but instead a significant number of people who claim, that the suicide bombers who go around blowing people up are really freedom fighters.
Therefore: To dress as a suicide bomber therefore can imply a stand in that debate, or at least as condoning it--especially when standing next to an authority figure.
I would never dress up as a Republican Congressman.
Klansmen wouldn't be tolerated. Dressing up as the Minnesota Vikings and having a mock "Lake Cruise" would sink pretty fast too.
That this was enabled and tolerated by the highest levels of Penn's administration makes the sorry state of our pomo colleges evident.
You broke the non-existent rule, because regardless of whether drug-dealing CIA agents *actually* exist, people *believe* that they exist. It's like dressing up as a Jew who drinks the blood of Christians.
In the end, this disturbs me. I think the purpose of dressing up for Halloween, and I hosted such a party last weekend, is for the amusement. And for the creativity. And for the "release" factor. You cannot be at a Halloween Party and not be in a light-hearted mood. Yes, you can do all of the above by dressing up as an unlikeable person, someone who is generally a subject of derision, or even mocking someone who is controversial (Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Rumsfeld as someone said, Clinton) knowing that some will find it hilarious and some will be a little on edge over it (if, for example, someone thinks Michael Moore or Limbaugh are figures to be looked up to). But if the chemistry is right among the party goers, and if they dip into the spiked punch a few times, that kind of mockery is all about giggles and getting/giving silly commentary.
But, a guy who looks like a terrorist acting out the inhumane rituals of a terrorist? I don't think so. Pedophile? Not that either. Rapist, with fly open and rubber appendage sticking out? Not really. Someone in the garb of a US soldier with empty sleeves and pantslegs, simulating a guy who lost his limbs in Iraq? Not so cute.
I'm asking myself, why is that not OK ... in MY OWN gut? Probably because of the seriousness of it and the
juxtaposition with a group attending in a spirit of "escape" and congeniality. My wife is a WWII nut. Has Nazi stuff --- helmet, flag, ammo box, etc. brought back from the war or bought on eBay. Yet, she would no more dress up in Nazi garb even among our close friends at an event. Though that horror is a distant thing, even to those who were alive then as she was, it's not a subject to be taken lightly. Nothing to use for "amusement". That's my take. And right now, and for a long time, those who kill people because of religion or ethnicity for a "cause" are nothing to emulate or impersonate.
Could any amount of alcohol get me to feel gracious about someone parading around in my home impersonating a terrorist? I doubt it. Oh, I wouldn't make a scene and take a stand about "get that off or get outta here". But, it would frost me that I had a friend so insensitive to how others might be affected that they'd do this, or even think seriously ABOUT doing it. I guess what I am saying is, it's out of place and just a bit too repulsive.
Where I am coming out: if you look like, or impersonate someone who might (if they were really what they look like) do harm to another right then and there, or create a traumatic reaction (the military amputee) and are not fictional such as a vampire or ghoul or something, it's out of place. It's introducing a seriously frightening and/or somber aspect into what is supposed to be enjoyable. Do it at a rally where it's par for the course, and the same thing may be OK in the context.
Also, I don't get a good feeling about the prominent hostess looking all jolly about the terrorist, no matter how much SHE might have had to drink.
Thanks for listening to the stream of consciousness. It helped me focus, anyway. I'm out.
Used to go to a dive bar in Chicago where the bartender kept a beer bottle opener (pre-twistoffs, I'm old) on an elastic strap tucked inside his pants. It was in the shape of a penis. On occasion he'd unzip enough to grap the ugly thing and pull it out to open a bottle of Schlitz or Bud or Old Style.
Nearly made an iced tea drinker out of me. But not quite.
On the main point, I do think it's in poor taste, because it's too close and too real. Zombie-related deaths are quite low compared to terrorist-related deaths. I'm basically with Terry Ott's view; it's not something I'd want at my party.
I confess that I'd find some things funny and non-offensive that others would find quite unfunny, and if the people at the party were cool with it, my disapprobation is light to non-existent. But I don't think it's exactly parallel to EV's other possible Halloween costumes.
--JRM
Eugene's complete lack of basic common sense (or a sense of relativism, whatever) on this is only eclipsed by that of the idiot president who thought it was all great good fun - so much so that she actually decided it photo-worthy.
I believe every person of conscience and common snese should contact the school and demand the "student" and president be discliplined. Out of respect for Eugene's blog, though his judgment is appalling on this, I won't post the contact info here. But I believe the contact email address is posted on Michelle Malkin's site. And she is to be commended for not timidly bowing to PC demands to honor terrorist-chic as so many others feel compelled to do.
KS
(As for Michelle Malkin, the phrase that comes to mind isn't printable in a family blog. She's always been something of a joke, but the thing that really sealed it for me was when she decided she was qualified to call William F. Buckley an idiot.)
Anyway, some of the conversation above made me recall one of my own favorite costumes during college: I went as a cosmetics lab technician (once again violating the non-existence rule), which entailed wearing a lab coat with "Revlon" on it, as well as using red paint to put on bloody paw prints, scratch marks, and so forth, and carrying around a similarly disfigured stuffed animal. I mention this costume because I wore it to the Halloween block party being thrown by my own university's President. I didn't actually go up to him, but I would personally have found it pretty odd if he had refused to be seen with me, largely for the reasons given by Professor Volokh. And in general, I think the real story would have been if a university President HAD done something like that to the person in the instant case, or otherwise disciplined him.
And frankly, I think it is really hilarious that people are calling for this woman's head. But like I said, people do enjoy their outrage.
COLLEGE PRESIDENT TOLERATES SOPHOMORIC BEHAVIOR
But it is a work in progress.
I'm a little confused about the basis for Instapundit's outrage. First the charge apparently was that the student was being anti-Semitic, but now the problem apparently is that suicide bombers are current enemies (presumably of the United States), not "vanquished former enemies". So would dressing as Kim Jong Il be in poor taste? (by the way, in my view that could be a pretty sweet costume.)
That'll get your attention.
(I bet he let the Tigger boy bounce all over the place too... good job!)
I believe every person of conscience and common snese should contact the school and demand the "student" and president be discliplined. Out of respect for Eugene's blog, though his judgment is appalling on this, I won't post the contact info here. But I believe the contact email address is posted on Michelle Malkin's site. And she is to be commended for not timidly bowing to PC demands to honor terrorist-chic as so many others feel compelled to do.
Yeah, um, let's laud Michelle Malkin's moral consistency for advocating reprisal when she, um, went APESHIT over the idea the newspapers might self-censor the Mohammed cartoons in the interest of quelling short term religious tension.
The rapist example doesn't work because it's not capable of being FUNNY. I think a child molester costume could be kind of funny - it's topical humor right now. But I'm guessing we don't share a sense of humor.
Quiz, who said this:
"I don't have a girlfriend, I just know a girl that would be really mad if she heard me say that."
That being the case, and it is, the usual presumption that this guy is trying to be funny and edgy doesn't apply.
You have an X% chance that he really approves, ditto the Uni president, where X>30.
I'm sorry, I am crazy about Eugene Volokh, but this is just silly. There are different kinds of scary. Jason and Freddy Krueger scary and terrorist scary. The difference is obvious.
The costume was stupid and in poor taste. But what the heck do people expect of the president? Was she supposed to kick him out? Refuse to take a picture? I mean, I could understand if she did those things, but should we expect her to? It wasn't her costume choice and she was just being polite and non-confrontational. Calls for punishing the student and the president seem a little wacky if you ask me (and I think the costume was STUPID STUPID STUPID!).
By the way, I think Richard's comment clarifies why some people are seizing onto this non-event--it presents an opportunity (at least in their minds) to smear the Ivy League! For some people, that temptation is just too hard to pass up.
As far as I see it,
#1 its halloween for chrissake!
#2, the only way that the president should get slammed over this is if, under her administration, students have previously been censured for "un-pc" halloween costumes or celebrations. Until she demonstrates hypocrisy in this, I'm praising her for NOT being overly PC.
I really think we should be encouraging things like this, in order to get the PC police off campus.
BTW, if I were a Penn student, i'd file these pics away as an affirmative defence for next years costume, and I'd go as whatever i felt would be most un-pc.
Just my $.02
Her "fave terrorist" is a princess? Other "fave terrorists" apparently include a kitty-cat (who got taken hostage) and the Statue of Liberty (who, fortunately, seems to have held her own against the terrorist threat).
By the way, although I am highly amused by the suggestion that a university president plays the same role as a high school principal, someone needs to read Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
For a more obvious (if overly obvious) hypothetical: Let's say you know somebody at the party's family member was murdered. Would it be ok to dress up as the murderer? Should everybody be light-hearted about it?
When you go as a suicide bomber, you don't have the right to tell people to be light-hearted about it. Sure you can do it, and you can make your statement, but you know darned well that there are going to be people who are offended. Essentially, you're saying "screw you" to those people. Even at a halloween party, I think that's in poor taste.
Of course, he's a college student, not a public figure, so it's not like this is a big deal, and I think it's pretty ridiculous to blame the President. This idea that there's really no such thing as an inappropriate joke, though, strikes me as kind of overboard.
Of course its in poor taste.
that being said, what's offensive to some may be funny to others. the student did nothing wrong, the president only did anthing wrong if she has policed halloween costumes before. (see the links in err's post (all the way at the top) at 8:18)
I guess people dont seem to see the larger point here.. You dont have the right to not be offended
Ok, well I would tell people to be more light-hearted about it than that...
You should care which, though. There's a big difference. If you turn anyone like this college student into a societally condemned outcast, you're going to end up with a lot more problems than we have now.
Not a right, of course, but isn't there some kind of societal expectation? For instance, that someone won't come up to you on the street and call you an ethnic slur? I'm not comparing, but I think the hard-and-fast rules are overstated. There are boundries out there, somewhere.
You say: "Let's say you know somebody at the party's family member was murdered. Would it be ok to dress up as the murderer?"
That seems to me like a highly misleading analogy. Let's say instead that you don't know somebody at the party's family member was murdered, and you come to the party dressed as Jeffrey Dahmer (back in his heyday, I saw something like three Dahmer's at one party). Should you be accused of poor taste? Should the other person take it as a personal offense?
Most people got a laugh out of it back then. Because they didn't recognize it, most people thought the gun slung across my back was a toy. It wasn't. I got the award for the most authentic costume. Because it was mostly young military people, they didn't mind having an unloaded rifle at the party.
I don't believe that I would get the same kind of reception today.
How do you do that? Wear a "Fine Young Cannibals" T-shirt?
I think Glenn Reynolds is just mad that nobody went as *him*.
They are supposed to say it and then cackly eerily.
I remember the Halloween parade in NY where I used to see at least as many real and current scary figures as imaginary. Everything from the flashers and serial killers to enemy soldiers, klansmen and dead cheerleaders (victims come back to haunt)... if you were easily offended you didn't show up because everyone was out to shock. Not sure if its still that way.
Speaking as a recent graduate of Penn and a very active member of the Jewish community, I'm not particularly concerned by this incident, particularly considering the guy's roommate. Was it poor judgment on Gutman's part? Well yeah, but only because it doesn't play well in the press. Relatively speaking, it's fairly amusing. If people here would like, I can find out what the general response in Penn's Jewish community was to this issue and post it here.
Sorry, Im at work and had to cut that post short... to continue where i left off,
Now, if I offend someone, and they let me know, i will look at my behavior and see if, imo, i'm outta line or they're overreacting. The more they scream and rant and rave, the less likely I'm going to give them any benefit of the doubt. If I'm outta line, i'll apologise.
As far as someone using an ethnic slur at me, thats their problem, really. (and it has happened... aimed at my religion and at my race) In this occurrence, yes some people have been offended. So? this kid should be punished for it? imo, these people calling for it should get a life. Words, however objectionable, should not be criminal if they don't put others at risk. (ie 'fire' in a crowded theatre)
crap, gotta run again,.....
The student in question may have acted in poor taste at a college Halloween party. As others have noted, surely that's never happened before.
As I recall, the standard Dahmer costume was a certain style of glasses, an orange jumpsuit and maybe restraints, and some sort of fake bodypart to chew on.
By the way, Houston Lawyer's post reminded me of the rash of "Disgruntled Postal Workers" I saw in the mid-90s.
Okay, hopefully i can finish it this time.
i see a big difference in saying "effin n****r" and saying to a group, "lets beat up that effin n****r". but even then, i dont see either as criminal on their own. Now, if the group acts on the second statement, then the speaker should be liable for incitement as well as assault.
Wonderful thing about america, i can stand on a box and shout invective to my hearts content. you dont have the legal right to stop me... you do have the right to not support my ideas, to call me names, to shout back. I guess thats what I meant by you dont have the right to not be offended. i can say anything i want, and I really dont have to care how you take it. ( I do, personally, but i'm arguing societally) I dont support any institution regulating what I can and cannot say, hear, read or see.
Did I make any sense?
thanks
The heros and villains of the political Left have to be honored. To not do so would betray a monumental lack of social judgment. Dressing like a suicide bomber is OK because, in the mind of the PC Left, this is a villain of the Right. (I'm not saying this makes sense!) Suicide bombers oppose Bush; Bush is himself evil. Hence, suicide bombers are OK. Dressing like poor white crackers-- OK! Dressing like poor black crackers-- NO! Dressing like Fidel/Che-- OK! Dressing like Hitler-- NO!
The political Right is just peeved that its sensibilities are being ignored. They feel that people who blow themselves in pizza parlors and maim women and children should provoke the same disgust that Hitler does. Well... sorry! Obviously the political Right does not make the cultural rules.
Happy Yom Kippur
You're right. I was responding to a speech question with what most people can agree is objectional speech. I dont think that anyone did anything punishable, here. If anyone has references to Penn (under the current admin) freaking out over non-pc speech, I'd be all over the hypocrisy myself.
Godfodder,
You are spot on, imo.
I still remember 1996: the three guys who went as ValuJet stewardesses. Hit of the party.
I think your point is well-taken, but which way do you want to go to resolve the hypocrisy? Once choice is to say, "Fine, PC Leftists, if you want to overreact to things you find offensive, then we will become PC Rightists and overreact to things we find offensive! See how you like it!" But the other choice is to say, "See, PC Leftists, this is the sort of thing you might overreact to, but we aren't going to do that because we really believe in free expression."
All that said, I'm still not sure how this cases falls along Right-Left lines, at least if you aren't using it as an opportunity for Ivy League bashing. As Ex-Fed also suggests, I could see PC-types of all sorts finding something to be offended about in this case.
My whole point has been that i welcome this kind of stuff in an effort to get the PC police off campus and out of everybodies lives. That way, anyone can be as offensive as they care to, and anyone can get as incensed at it as they care to, but none of this should be criminal. Kid shouldn't be kicked out of school, and the pres should only be fired if she has prevented speech on the grounds of it being offensive.
btw, that last sentence was a bit over the top.. ( funny tho)
I don't get it. Are you saying that the same standards of public scrutiny and propriety should apply to the presidents of universities (in this case a private university, I might note) as to Presidents and Presidential candidates?
That sounds pretty odd to me. Even if you view them as political leaders (which is not exactly obvious), university presidents have a limited constituency and a limited mandate. For example, it isn't part of President Gutmann's job to communicate messages about terrorism to the general public, but it is part of her job to maintain a forum in which her students can feel free to express their views.
And all that being said--I'm sure people would in fact make political hay about Bush or Kerry appearing in a photo with a "terrorist" at a Halloween party. But I think that is a darn shame.
To the masses:
Am I the only one offended by Penn's President's costume? Her portrayal of Little Bo Peep just reinforces our societies unethical subjugation of animals.
Seriously though, should everyone just dress up as the verizon guy (that was hitler's costume this year) or a generic "GAP" model? Would that be better? That's one way to truly make Halloween scary. For one day of the year, we could all pretend to live in an oppressive authoritarian regime where individual freedom is abolished so not to offend the least tolerant among us.
So, who's going to lead the uproar November 23rd over all those genocidal maniacs in the funny hats and buckled shoes?
Right. So the next time the leftwing PC police do something foolish, I'm not going to criticize them, I'm going to criticize the presumed hypocrisy of the rightwing PC police. Sheesh.
Your idea of "scary" is Freddy Kreuger? Freddy is cool, but not genuinely scary. Ghosts, witches, even dressing up as Satan himself - all stock material for Halloween, and thus now part of the iconography of supposedly-scary-but-not-really that makes up some people's idea of a safe-and-fun Halloween.
I love costuming. I love the creativity and enthusiasm that many people put into their costumes - the ones that have exceptional ideas, or make exceptional efforts. And most of them aren't scary, and that's just fine; they aren't trying to be scary, and the joy of appreciating their costumes doesn't come from that.
But Halloween wouldn't be Halloween if it were all just ha-ha-pretty-pretty. Scary is good, too. And that means getting outside people's comfort zone, which for some people can mean pushing things pretty hard and pretty far. Like the time a group of my friends came to a party dressed in Nazi regalia. Really good Nazi regalia, too - this wasn't just putting on a Prince Harry armband. Did we think they were endorsing the Nazis? No, of course not. Did we take it as light-hearted fun and games? No, of course not.
We took it as it was intended: black humor. It got even blacker and funnier at one point in the evening when the fog machine got turned on full blast and the house filled with vapor. The Nazis made cracks telling people not to run from the gas.
Sick? Yep. Funny? Oh god yes.
Not everyone gets that kind of stuff. Not everyone can appreciate it. I'm stunned that Glenn "Puppy Blender" Reynolds gets his panties in a bunch over a terrorist costume. But all humor is about cognitive dissonance; all humor is an attempt to deal with unpleasant things by putting them in absurd contexts. Black humor just pushes us to the extreme edge of being comfortable and invites us to laugh anyway.
I feel sorry for people that can't laugh at horror. Being able to laugh and being able to feel genuine horror are not mutually exclusive. You can feel sorrow and loss and anger for the events of 9/11, and you can laugh at a joke about it at the same time ("Q: When does a pentagon have four sides?
A: When it intersects a plane."). Being able to laugh in the face of tragedy doesn't make you less human; on the contrary, I'd be concerned about the humanity of anyone who couldn't do that.
Halloween of all times is a time to do exactly that.
I have no idea but his website has photos of him visiting his immediate family in Syria. You can decide for yourself what that might say about the influences on his attitude regarding Muslim terrorists. On the other hand, he has apparently lived peacefully with an Israeli roommate.
As to the costume and acting out terrorist executions, I think it was both in bad taste and no big deal. Just because we believe something is inappropriate doesn't mean that we have to overreact and make a huge controversy over it. Americans have become whiners and I find that more disgusting than any Halloween costume.
It would be bad taste for a German to dress up as a Nazi *regardless of whether the German is influenced by Nazis or what he thinks about them.* It's not the possibility of influence that makes it bad taste, it's because Nazis were associated with Germany and claimed to be working for the benefit of Germans.
There was a comedian I saw who thought it was a great sign that he felt pretty comfortable making AIDS jokes these days. It meant AIDS was losing its unspeakable fearsomeness and that we were winning the battle. Same here. I would be more concerned about our nation's hope and optimism for the defeat of Islamists if there were not people like this kid and this school president, willing to take photographs casually mocking suicide bombers. (BTW, I think more overt mockery, like dressing as a cross-dressing Hitler or a terrorist suffering indignities, is actually more defensive and less powerful mockery than simply acting like a regular German-screaming Hitler or a swaggering macho suicide bomber. We you do that the mockery is inherent in the character.)
Or will they see it as an opportunity to take advantage of our bourgeois rules?
To try to example the left into reasonable behavior is to cast pearls before swine.
Well, you might consider acting a certain way because it is the right thing to do, as opposed to because of how it will help you combat "the lefties" in whatever war you think you are fighting. And one would think if you had confidence in the rightness of your conduct, then eventually there would be more of you and less of "the lefties" precisely because open-minded people would be persuaded to join you.
Unless perhaps you believe people are simply born "lefties" and "righties", ala Plain- and Star-bellied Sneetches.
I got that one last year. Sometimes I just want to smack people.
And since when is an undergraduate a lead representative for a public institution?
Had the university president herself dressed as a suicide bomber for Halloween there might be some room for criticism--but even that would suggest someone too unhinged by their own PC PC orthodoxy to take a joke. It is, after all, Halloween.
1) the KKK is not at war with the United States and its strategic Middle East ally, Israel -- or certainly not on the scale that quasi-governmental organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are. Hence, his choice of costume deserves more than usual scrutiny.
2) The way this war plays out in civil society, in media and the culture, is of special importance. The blogosphere has documented rap videos glorifying military jihad; the cradle-to-grave brainwashing on behalf of "martyrdom" which Palestinian children undergo; and the decidedly not random assaults and murders committed in the United States by disgruntled Muslims and/or Arabs (the LAX shooting, the UNC student SUV driver, the Seattle JCC shootings). If Mr. Saadi failed to weigh these factors in his choice of costume, then those of us who did weight them have a duty to speak up.
3) KKK, Nazi, etc. garb should be extremely objectionable in their own right, even if permissible. Witness the flap Prince Harry caused by wearing a swastika to a party not too long ago. But the KKK has not murdered hundres of Israeli civilians in recent years, does not raise funds in the United States to buy weapons for Hamas and Hezbollah, does not operate cells in Europe, South America, Asia, and Africa.
Exactly why is dressing as a current enemy of the United States (or Israel) problematic on Halloween? What do you think that means?
Fair question. First, I think it's problematic any day of the year. Further, the license our culture permits on Halloween is not best well exercised by dressing - without qualification - as a declared and implacable enemy.
Look through all the pictures of Mr. Saadi which Michelle Malkin posted at her site: he deliberately and consistently exhibited the aggressive, menacing, and violent attirbutes of fanatic Islamic terrorists. In one he poses with his rifle at the head of an intended victim; in another he has given his rifle to a small child who aims it directly into the camera. Don't you know that Fateh, Hamas, and Hezbollah all train their children to use real weapons in passionate anticipation of one day being able to kill Israelis?
Let me qualify what I think our Halloween tradition confers on Americans. It allows us to parade our sense of horror and of death, and usually with a sense of hilarity. Very good. But there's no movement afoot to breed and train armies of Draculas to invade Israel, or to raise funds on several contients to make that happen. There, there is real horror and real death and no sense of hilarity. Mr. Saadi abused the license Halloween permits; the net effect was to tacitly endorse terrorism.
On the other had, please click on my post about my Hallowwen costume, a Homeless Suicide Bomber. I did a far better job of qualifying how to dress as a suicide bomber on this holiday. In that post, be sure to click over to Victor Hason in conversation with Hugh Hewitt on this subject.
From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009194
I suppose it's commonly accepted by most of us that anon drive-by posters will usually try such obvious attempts to avoid the topic at hand: the wannabee-jihadist &the schools president's shameful behavior. Anons may even post great giggles when a busload of Jewish schoolgirls are murdered by a homicide bomber. But, for some odd reason, most of the rest of us will disagree.
Anons may very likely also praise and excuse those who dress up as rapists &child molesters, the terrorists of women and children. That's why I'm not surprised if they approve the fact that the school president's "come as your fave terrorist" bash included the terrorists of children:
"an impersonator of Scott Ward, the ex-Wharton professor who is awaiting trial for importing child pornography earlier this year. The costume was complete with a fake boy whose head was at the level of the impersonator's crotch."
http://www.campus-watch.org
Yes, Anon, I know the usual excuse will be a varation of the relativist creed: "one child's terrorist is another child's prince/princess"
Not that I expect really anything better from the anons, but it still surprises me that common sense has become so uncommon.
I still don't follow your logic. Yes, these enemies are real. How does that turn dressing as such an enemy on Halloween (and I do think context matters) into an endorsement of their aims or methods?
Karen,
I think I have in fact addressed the substance of the issue in the posts above. And frankly, by blatantly misstating the facts of this case, I think you are in the one who is avoiding the substance of the real issue. And, of course, it is ridiculous to suggest that those who think dressing as a terrorist for Halloween is acceptable would also support actual acts of terrorism. Your failure to understand that distinction makes it difficult to take your views seriously.
First, from that description it sounds entirely unwarranted to suggest that the pirate skeleton in a noose was a reference to lynching.
Second, I agree with Professor Volokh that there is an unfortunate tendency to accuse all white people who dress as black people of racism (the "blackface" problem).
Third, all that said, in that case I think there is a potentially legitimate issue because of the stereotyping of local black people apparently represented in the invitation.
Applying that case to the case we have been discussing, then, I suppose we could ask whether the costume represented an offensive stereotyping of terrorists. And personally, I don't care, because I think it is fine to offend those people.
"I think you are in the one who is avoiding the substance"
I'm so not interested in what anons and trolls "think" of me. I don't think any serious person does or should care.
"I think it is fine to offend those people."
Indeed, for many anons and trolls, offending Jews is a obsessive-compulsive lifestyle.
But for some odd reason, Jews are not playing along. "Those people" got that dang "never again" thing going on:
The Jerusalem Post
US university president poses with 'suicide bomber'
You are dismissed, anon, in every sense of the word. Goombye.
As an aside, one of the many reasons why I post anonymously is that I wish my comments to be judged solely on their content.
Anyway, once again it seems to me that you are deliberately misstating things in order to make your points. For example, as I think you well know, when I said "I think it is fine to offend those people," I was referring to terrorists, not Jews. And again, when you deliberately misstate things in that fashion, it makes it quite hard to take you seriously.
By the way, ordinarily I would actually be quite interested to find out why someone would think this costume is offensive to Jews. In that sense, I do think it is a shame that you will not discuss this issue in a serious manner.