Is anyone else a bit puzzled by the tone of this article from the Syracuse University newspaper?
Student accused of blackface use
An alleged blackface incident took place over the weekend, but those involved say it could all be a misunderstanding.
Just after midnight on Saturday morning, the Department of Public Safety received a report that a student was wandering around Watson Residence Hall with his face painted a dark color, according to a Public Safety report.
The student is a new brother of Delta Tau Delta . . . .
The student told officers that the face paint was camouflage — not blackface — and that he was actually on his way to rob a house, Hall said.
“As far as we know, this was all a misunderstanding,” [the fraternity president] said. “We are working with the university and (the Office of Greek Life and Experiential Learning).”
Even though the student claimed that he was going to attempt a burglary instead of dressing in blackface, DPS officers will continue to research both scenarios, [DPS director Marlene] Hall said.
“We are still looking at it, investigating it and working with other departments on campus,” Hall said. “So it could be looking at burglary, it could be other things as well that we would be looking at.” . . .
As for the student’s explanation about the robbery, there was an anonymous tip called in earlier that day to a DPS hot line which confirmed there was a planned burglary, according to a Public Safety report. . . .
She said the house, which was reportedly planned to be burglarized, was vandalized.
“The appropriate measures are being taken right now,” Sheaffer said. “We are working with the university to figure out an appropriate punishment.” . . .
Seems to me that the serious accusation is attempted burglary or possibly conspiracy to commit burglary. The second most serious accusation — if the burglary story is fake — would be lying to the police, which might be a crime under state law or at least is grounds for disciplining the student. The use of blackface as such, which is generally constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, see Iota Xi v. George Mason University993 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993) (if no attempted burglary is involved, and setting aside content-neutral antimask laws, which don’t seem to be implicated here), would be the least serious accusation. Syracuse University is a private university, and thus isn’t bound by the First Amendment, but most leading private universities generally describe themselves as being morally constrained by constitutional principles, even though they aren’t legally constrained by them.
“[I]t could all be a misunderstanding,” with its suggestion that the real explanation (burglary) is less serious than the apparent one (blackface), strikes me as out of place, unless I’m picking up a subtext that isn’t really there.
Comments are closed.