|
Diversity Ain’t a
Coke Commercial
Some of us are old enough to remember Coca Cola’s
famous “Hilltop” advertisement in 1971. It featured singers gathered on
a hilltop, all young people of various ethnicities and national origin
dressed in costumes that represented their nationality. Among other
lyrics, they sang, “I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect
harmony,” and concluded, “Coke is what the world wants today.”
In reality, what most of the world wanted was
peace. The Vietnam War was raging in 1971, and the Cold War seemed
endless. In the United States, cities like Detroit, Newark, and Los
Angeles were still cleaning up after riots, and four graves were still
fresh in Kent, Ohio. Harmony and a swig of Coke were presented as the
elixir of the times.
Unfortunately, the hilltop gathering became a
symbol for diversity. The legacy of the hilltop ad is a concept of
diversity that is harmonious, happy and sunny. As recent events at the
University of Arizona have demonstrated, there is a dark side to
diversity.
The first event was a Black History Month
demonstration project that involved the placement of “Whites Only” and
“Colored Only” signs at restrooms and drinking fountains in a U of A
dorm. The purpose was to remind the current student generation
that Jim Crow laws and segregation are not that remote in time, and to
give the students an idea what it looked like. I remember seeing
signs like that in the 1950s, and I have a photograph of segregated
restrooms, taken in the South in the 1960s, on the wall of my home
office. The signs read, “Ladies,” “Men,” and “Colored.” It makes no more sense to deny
state-sponsored segregation than it does to deny the holocaust.
The other event consisted of an off-campus party on
Martin Luther King Day, a supposed “black themed” party at which some
white participants painted themselves in blackface and some wore
“gangsta” clothing, included “do rags” and “pimp and ho” costumes. The
party has been denounced as racist at a campus forum, and U of A
President Robert Shelton expressed outrage and concern. A local
newspaper columnist joined in the denunciation in a rambling column that
was strong on outrage but weak on analysis.
The columnist is in good company. There has been
little, if any, logic or analysis expressed in the news articles about
the party and the reaction to it. A statement in the
morning daily attributed to a University of Arizona student is
typical: “‘As much as we'd like to think things have changed since 1968
or 1967 or before that, things haven't changed that much,’ she said.
‘Culturally, we still don't get each other when people don't understand
that painting your face black is wrong.’”
The suggestion that “things haven’t changed much”
since the late 1960s can only come from someone who was not alive then.
The young lady should have visited the dorm with the “Whites Only” signs
before talking to the press. And, if “painting your face black is
wrong,” must we denounce Al Jolson and Gene Wilder?
If “painting your face black is wrong,” what about
painting your face white? Dave Chappelle, an African-American comedian,
frequently performed in whiteface and drew laughter, not condemnation.
I’m sure there are white people who took offense, but they are few in
number.
But blackface is different, even for Chappelle. As
he related to Oprah Winfrey, he decided to leave his successful
television program when he performed a sketch in blackface that played
on stereotypes. At that point he said he wondered if he was
contributing to the racism he was trying to critique.
Meanwhile, Carlos Mencia, a Hispanic comic,
lampoons all races and nationalities with impunity and people find
themselves laughing too hard to denounce him. In America, if you’re
funny enough, you’ll get a pass.
So, why get upset about some jerks who dressed in
blackface at an off-campus party? Is there substance in the protest, or
is it simply an example of what David L. Brooks refers to as the “the
politics of perpetual outrage?”
I think it’s both. It was appropriate for Dr.
Shelton to express criticism. While my conservative colleagues might
interpret that as an expression of “traditional left-wing campus
politics,” I disagree. A university campus is not so much a hotbed of
liberalism as it is a hotbed, period, fueled by hormones, immaturity,
and exuberance. That’s a volatile population, and the University needs
to keep a lid on it. If a bunch of jerks threaten the peace and
security of the campus, then denounce the jerks. That’s a safety issue,
not liberalism run amuck.
I also think the choice to have “black themed”
parties on Martin Luther King Day was offensive. Dr. King was not just
a “black” leader; he was a great leader and a great American. Those who
regard him as a “black” icon totally miss the point, and that’s a shame,
whether they paint their faces or not.
Finally, the local news media overlooked the fact
that “pimp and ho” parties are so common among University of Arizona
fraternities and other party-throwers that they are a cliché. A close
acquaintance of mine used to work at a costume shop near campus. The
owner and employees frequently commented on how tired they were of the
same old “pimp and ho” costume requests, not because they objected to
the theme, but because they tired of renting out the same costumes over
and over.
It appears that much of the outrage was not just
because some students painted themselves in blackface, but because they
did so in the context of demeaning stereotypes such as, for example,
“pimps and ho’s.” That’s unfortunate, but inescapable. Those
stereotypes date back at least to “blaxploitation” films like “Super
Fly,” in which the protagonist was a cocaine dealer played by Ron
O’Neal. Media fuels the stereotypes and far too many young
African-Americans buy into them. The best you can say about white kids
who emulate them is that they are derivatively stupid.
The worst thing one can do is overreact. Consider
this comment from another University of Arizona student who was not
satisfied with Dr. Shelton’s letter criticizing the party: “‘He said
some good things in the letter, but more action needs to be taken,’ he
said. ‘If we allow them to spread these hate ideas and don't do
anything, it condones it.’"
The purpose of diversity is to serve as a process
of learning, rather than an outcome in and of itself. Diversity aids
the educational process by challenging students with opposing
perspectives and points of view that cause them to reconsider their own,
and by acting to close the achievement gap to the extent that it’s based
on race, color, and national origin. That purpose can hardly be served
by punishing lawful expressions some find uncomfortable or, as the young
student recommends, censoring “these hate ideas.” Censorship offends
diversity.
The only student’s name I’ll mention in this piece
is Robin Marks. Robin, a star athlete and African-American, was a
student in a University of Arizona class I taught in the late 1980s.
One day the class was discussing the infamous march by the Ku Klux Klan
in Skokie, Illinois. I asked the class whether they thought the Klan
should be permitted to march and Robin raised her hand.
“Let them march,” she said. “I want to hear what
they have to say.”
© February 16,
2007 by Mike Tully |
