Editors' Note: The following article contains offensive language.
1: Is the word “faggot” a homophobic slur?
2: That’s an easy question. Yes, it is.
1: Is it homophobic if a Caucasian says it?
2: Yes, it is.
1: Is it homophobic if an African-American says it?
2: Yes, it is.
1: So why, then, do a number of students here at Middlebury believe that Chance the Rapper’s use of the slur was only perceived as homophobic because he was black? That the outcry surrounding his concert was predicated on his race?
2: When Timeflies performed here last spring, no one called out the underlying – and at times overt – misogyny of their frat-rap. Explain that.
1: You avoid the point. While we failed to confront the problem then, does that really excuse failing to confront the issue now? Indeed, doesn’t this history mean that our responsibility to act is even greater now than it was then?
2: That is a nice sentiment, but I think that only choosing to tackle these issues once a young black male is at the center of controversy confuses the debate. It just seems a tad too convenient, don’t you think?
1: Is this really an issue that you can choose to confront on your own terms? It engulfs the everyday lives of many here at Middlebury, whether we are exposed to it or not. Consider the violently homophobic letter left on a student’s door earlier this semester and the uproar which followed. Did the fallout from that letter not warrant a broader evaluation of the stage given to Chance?
2: Obviously the content of that letter was deplorable, but is an altercation between two students really relevant to an artist’s intrinsic right to the freedom of expression?
1: Given the response to the aforementioned letter, which included an all-student email penned by the Dean, scathing op-eds in the Campus and online, and numerous discussions both North and South of College St., isn’t it imperative that we consider the tension of the College community in the weeks leading up to Chance? Is it not more likely that it was this atmosphere and not the color of the performer’s skin which lead to protest?
2: Perhaps that played a part, but race cannot simply fall by the wayside. It is not one amongst a number of factors here and at large. Race is always at play, especially in a community like this one. The critical mass is tenuous at best and minority students are forced by their surroundings to become the voice of their people, unable to truly express themselves or break free of the label carried by their skin. And besides that, every time we try to discuss these issues no one new comes to the table. The majority of the campus sits idly by, unwilling to confront its own inherent complicity, while a small number of students attempt to tackle the problem head-on.
1: You speak of race as if it governs everything that we do and everything that we are. By your construction, race is a definition, an absolute; it characterizes how one thinks and how one acts. But this is not the case. Race need not be the deciding factor. You are right that turnout at discussions is scant and ought to be much higher and more diverse. But the nature of these discussions precludes such a possibility. With good reason you talk about critical mass. Well, the critical mass for critical thought is shrinking. When what passes for discussion is the mere mention of ‘narrative’ and ‘actualization,’ it’s no wonder that no one shows up. Conversation is predictable and stagnant and the result is little more than group therapy. Race is a serious thing and we still have serious work to do in confronting it, both as a society at large and here at Middlebury, but we cannot allow ourselves to fall into this trap of crying wolf every time we think someone might react. Students have become jaded and the real instances where race is at play have lost their power to move and incite. This is the real tragedy, don’t you agree?
Comments
