Author of Racist Email Apologizes, Promises To Be Funnier in Future
Tommy Brothers, Dartmouth '11, came forward as the author of the incendiary email about President Jim Yong Kim in an email (kid loves to email) sent to the student body Friday afternoon. Brothers states:
I hope you can all understand that my intent was never one of malice against the Asian community, but an extremely crass attempt at hyperbolic satire. I was initially trying to criticize what I perceived to be surprise among many at the naming of an Asian-American President-Elect, Dr. Kim.
Brothers goes on to discuss all the ways people will make a big deal out of this for weeks to come:
I have started, along with the rest of the GGMM staff, to try to find ways that the whole community can learn from this experience. We are meeting with OPAL and the Pan-Asian Council to try to find a constructive strategy moving forward.
After the jump, Brothers promises to meet with you and help you heal, but only after finals. At the end of his email, Brothers states:
I know I can never take back what I wrote. I am sorry if I hurt you personally, and I am sorry for affecting the College in such a negative way. If you would like to speak to me individually about this, I would love to do so. Perhaps at the beginning of next term, after finals, would be the best time. I promise you I am going to learn as much as I can from this mistake.
But is there ever a good time for apologizing to people? And what about hyperbolic apologies? Oh, maybe Brothers could do racist apologies!
Just kidding. Unless Brothers has some more racist tricks up his sleeve, we're putting this nontroversy to bed.
64 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Dartmouth, dartmouth review, hyperbolic satire, Jim Yong Kim, racism
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
March 7th, 2009 at 5:16 am
this was really news-worthy….
March 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
To the gulag with ye!
March 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
As a member of the Asian community, I think it’s pathetic he needed to apologize. It was obviously satire/humor. People are overly sensitive these days and use political correctness to gain power over others. We will only become post-racial when we can talk openly about race, even humorously, without assuming one’s intent is hostile–without being hypersensitive. I find in hypocritical that we let Chris Rock speak this way toward other races, but when a white man does he’s condemned.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Shut up…I doubt you are Asian, probably a white guy trying to justify his point by using the race card. And how are you going to use a comedian to strengthen your argument? You are pathetic
What Tommy Brothers did was wrong and he made Dartmouth look bad. The end.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Essentially what Tommy Brothers is apologizing for is not for being racist. It’s for not being funny. Had the GGMM been a well-honed bit of satire, there wouldn’t be an issue at all. Which raises the question…if what we’re unhappy about is Brothers’s poor execution rather than any malicious intent, why are we making such a huge deal out of it?
March 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
tomm brothers really should have stepped down from the ggmm or been fired
March 7th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
wow, people really need get over themselves. You can’t bitch every time something offends you. It was meant to be funny/satirical. Comedians make ethnic jokes all the time, that doesn’t make them racist. If every person took offense to every joke made at their expense, it would be a pretty dry and depressing world. And if the joke isn’t funny, that doesn’t make it racist, just a bad joke. No one bitched about Don Rickles or Richard Pryor and they said things much more “offensive” than this guy did.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
If you hadn’t already figured it out, Asians are probably the racial group who is LEAST likely to bitch / take offense at racial jokes at their expense. As pointed out in the other thread, if this involved any other ethnic group, this would have been on national news, there would be demonstrations to protest it, and Brothers probably would be suspended by now. And yes, comedians make ethnic jokes all the time, but as we’ve seen in recent years, there’s a very thin line between acceptable humor and humor that crosses the line and greatly offends some people (Don Imus, anyone?).
Lastly, I really don’t think you can tell people how to think / react to a situation targeting them outside of the extreme cases (clearly innocent or clearly hateful). Brothers’ e-mail was definitely hazy enough that it could be read as being racist, and if some people read it that way, he clearly failed in his attempt to be funny / edgy / satirical with racial humor as opposed to borderline racist thoughts. If you’re going to play with fire like that, you have to be ready to face the consequences of being burned if it backfires on you. That goes for Brothers as well as comics who are too provocative with their racial jokes.
March 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Dartmouth loves to get offended. I say we do away with OPAL, “Institutional Diversity and Equity” (retarded name speaks of uselessness), and GLBTQAJSDIDPEM.
March 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
It’s typical of IvyGate commenters to rush to the defense of the offender instead of the offended, the dominant instead of the marginalized.
Tommy seemed sorry, but he won’t (and shouldn’t) recover his reputation anytime soon. After all, even if he had no ill intent, he should have foreseen (as any rational and egalitarian person would have) the impact of the “satire.” The recklessness of the message and the tardiness of the apology (which students were told would come on Wednesday) make his apology difficult to accept.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Contrary to doubleivy, I think anon made a valid point. Those who were offended by this poor attempt at humor want to see Brothers humiliated and his reputation damaged (see previous comments), and have themselves become the oppressors. Only for them, there is no pretense.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Take pity on the bigot! So oppressed and marginalized! These uppity egalitarians are going too far!!!
Last time I checked, it was Brothers who humiliated Asians & Asian Americans, trivialized their achievements, and damaged Dartmouth’s reputation. He might not have intended to be hurtful, but he should have realized the destructive potential of his message before the backlash. Given the gravity of that offense and America’s long-standing tradition of White dominance, it’s ridiculous to equate the anti-racists with the oppressors.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
“he should have foreseen (as any rational and egalitarian person would have) the impact of the ’satire.’”
What you MEAN to say, is that you and a whole lot of your friends aren’t very good at recognizing jokes.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Please leave this blog and allow those who understand what “harmless fun” means to continue reading IvyGate.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I guess I’ll just go back to the internment camps where we folk belong. (Or was it the railway? Oh yeah, it was the Panda Garden.) It’s ok, I now realize the error of my ways. How dare I have an opinion–and worse–voice it?
If IvyGate were really a place for only those who understand “harmless fun,” you don’t bbelong here.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Dear @ano,
I never equated anti-racism with oppression, I merely stated there is a non-zero overlap between the two. If you don’t understand humor simply avert your eyes next time, but spare us your crusade.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I like being in an era where I can see the demise of Caucasians. Keep acting like what you do in “harmless fun.” That is the excuse you all as a race have used for way too long.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I completely agree with what “@princeton” and “@ano” said. Simply put, if we were dealing with any other race, this guy would have been crucified by now. But somehow, it’s more okay to make fun of Asian-Americans than it is to make fun of other minorities (can you even IMAGINE how much hate this guy would be getting from the press if he had made similar “satirical” comments about African-Americans)? And while comedians say racist things sometimes, this E-mail was hardly the kind of thing you’d hear in a stand-up club.
No one’s denying it was an attempt at a joke, but he made the joke at the expense of Asians and their dignity.
And shame on you, Ivygate, for calling this a “nontroversy”… thanks for helping spread the message that it’s okay to openly mock Asian-Americans.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Dear ano,
Where did you get the idea that I don’t understand humor? I conceded the author meant to be funny, not hurtful. I even concede that some people probably found the message funny, not racist. But the damage the email has done to the Dartmouth community is undeniable. Given the scope of the consequences, it’s inappropriate to say those who responded to it are oppressing the writer. No equation, no overlap.
Funny you would compare my comments to the Crusades, a period when White Europeans terrorized Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land (broadly speaking, Asians). Again, no equation, no overlap. But irony, yes.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Understanding humor =/= Finding a particular joke appropriate
March 7th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
i am dartmouth student. i can safely say no “damage” has been done. a ridiculous incident has been distracting people on campus for a few days. a stupid ass kid tried to be funny and wasn’t funny. people got upset, the kid apologized, and the world keeps turning. no one gives a shit anymore and i want to read about something actually interesting now. the only place where this thing is still a biig deal to people is places other than dartmouth.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Everyone offended by this guy’s email: GET OVER YOURSELVES. It is suppose to be humor. If it isn’t funny, then its a bad joke, not racism. I’m sure for every joke there is someone who will find that joke over the line, since people have different levels of tolerance or tastes in humor. You can’t label something as something more than just bad humor just because it crosses what you might consider the threshold.
to @ princeton,
You have never listened to either of those comedians. What they say about other races would probably make someone as soft skinned as you charge them with hate crimes. Don Imus’ show was and is suppose to be offensive. he’d been calling bush and cheney war criminals since they invaded iraq. he called condi rice a nappy headed bitch. he insults everyone- that’s the whole point. If you don’t like it, don’t listen.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I’d buy Mr. Brothers some Kung Pao chicken and a beer for his troubles. He has a point – New Hampshire is not supposed to be China. He shouldn’t have apologized but I guess “they” got to him.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
article on “the onion”:
DS: Do you ever receive hate mail?
Chet: Every now and then. We’re generally not bombarded by it.
DS: What is generally the theme of those letters?
Sean: Do you know what I think it is? It’s whatever affects that person. So it’s like, “I love it when you make a joke about murder or rape, but if you talk about cancer, well my brother has cancer and that’s not funny to me.” Or someone else can say, “Cancer’s hilarious, but don’t talk about rape because my cousin got raped.” I’m using extreme examples, but whatever it is, if it affects somebody personally they tend to be more sensitive about it. But because we are equal opportunity, we can’t stop doing that. The best is we wrote a story—did you ever see the Police Academy when the officer gets thrown off his motorcycle after he brakes really hard and his head goes up a horse’s ass, and he died? We wrote an Op-Ed about that scene that was, “That’s not funny, my brother died that way.” That was sort of speaking to how people are offended by things that touch them personally somehow.
Chet: Almost every piece of hate mail starts with the line, “Usually I love The Onion, but this time you’ve gone too far…” We responded to that with, “Normally I love your pornographic website, but this time you’ve gone too far…” Someone will always be offended by something.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
GGMM, WHY DIDNT YOU FIRE TOMMY BROTHERS?
March 7th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
He shouldn’t have apologized for making a racist joke; he should have apologized for being unfunny. If you’re going to send out a “hyperbolic satire” email to the ENTIRE FUCKING CAMPUS there are two checks that should be performed prior to sending: (1) verify the text actually contains satire and (2) verify the text is funny.
What prescription drugs is this guy buying second-hand to think that “…Dartmouth is America, not Panda Garden Rice Village Restaurant…” has either satirical content or is anywhere close to funny. Maybe if he reworked to be “…Dartmouth is America, and Jews did 9/11…” I could get behind this kid’s cause.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:26 am
you know what’s ironic about this whole thing? tommy brothers is actually canadian. fuck those immigrants.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Tommy Brothers is an excellent member of the Dartmouth community and should not be branded a racist / bigot/ asshole etc. from an email he sent to a group of subscribers. This group is not affiliated with the College and thus the satire (or poor attempt at) should be considered his personal right to express himself and not as an official statement from the school.
If you have read GGMM you would know that there are often short stories or other “literary works” that are not direct insights into the author’s mind. They are stories or portrayals – fiction. It is unfair to claim that this is how he actually feels. If there was a short story about man who rapes a woman, would it be fair to say the author condones rape?
March 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
@D11 – No, but if the author blatantly glorifies the rapist, then it would be fair to say that the author is espousing rape. In this case, no one is condemning Tommy Brothers for having written about race, or even about the race of Jim Kim. People are upset, because Tommy Brothers did so in a way that degraded and insulted the Asian community (as well as anyone with half a brain).
Tommy Brothers has a right to express his racist self, but we have the same right to judge him for the harm that he has caused.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Dear @ano,
I stand by my word choice.
Crusade: a strenuous campaign in aid of a cause. And this has certainly become strenuous given the initial infraction. Because neither I am a White European nor you a Jew or Muslim, and no one at Dartmouth is embarking to take back the holy land I don’t think the second definition applies, and frankly don’t see the irony.
@”Harvard”
I find your post offensive. “anyone with half a brain…” You’re implying that if I’m not offended then I am must be stupid. That’s an indirect insult, equally, nay, more offensive than if you had pointed out cultural trends associated with members of my ethnic group. My fellow un-offended compatriots, join me in making an example of “Harvard” for so brazenly insulting us and sullying the name of a fine institute!
Here’s an idea. Go read previous GGMM letters and see if you can spot a history of satire. Done? Now see if you can spot a history of racism and bigotry in those same letters. Then, using Occam’s razor, try to figure out which category this falls under. After that, work on your self-esteem so that you aren’t so easily insulted.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
d’10 is exactly right. And for all the Asians with sticks shoved up their asses bitching about how this wouldn’t be tolerated if this happened to any other race…for one, we’re a model minority. Compared to other minority ethnic groups, we’re on average economically better off and have more educational opportunities. We can afford to be thick-skinned; they, arguably less so.
And to be completely frank, if we had gotten an African-American president and GGMM sent out a similarly-worded piece of satire, I would have had the same reaction: it’s a fucking stupid idea, but it’s still just poor satire. Focusing our attention on an incompetent writer is just taking the spotlight away from the real racists.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:10 am
What is disturbing about Mr. Brothers’ so-called “attempt at humor” is the glimpse it provides into the mainstream American society’s reluctance to accept that Asian men can be capable leaders. It’s well-known that even highly trained Asian-American men earn less than white men of comparable qualifications and are promoted to managerial positions at a much lower rate. I would argue that much of it has to do with the perception that Asian men are less suited to lead, reinforced and perpetuated by the exclusion of Asians from leadership roles in the popular media. Asian men are nearly always sidekicks or villains. I do not recall ever seeing an Asian man being cast in a positive role even in areas where they are well-represented in real life. As an example, while 25% of U.S. medical students are Asian (over 30% at some top schools) and Asian physicians populate many of the most prestigious hospitals in the country, there has never been a single Asian male actor playing a physician on “E.R”, the longest-running medical drama on TV, in its 15+ years of existence. There are plenty of Asian actor-wannabes who would love to play doctor on TV and could play it quite well, but I would imagine it just might make some people uncomfortable to see an articulate, intelligent Asian man in a position of power and influence, because that’s not where they are supposed to be.
So here is a man with an impeccable pedigree (a Harvard M.D.-Ph.D., medical residency at a Harvard hospital, a full Professor at Harvard Medical School, and Chair of a Harvard Department) and amazing accomplishments, who has literally saved the lives of millions of people in the Third World and is highly regarded across the globe for his leadership in world health. He has proven his leadership skills beyond any doubt merely by the fact that he was able to organize and run these massive efforts and raise funds for projects no one had believed possible. But some bigots still don’t want to admit that an Asian man can be a leader, despite all the evidence to the contrary. So to resolve this tension, you need to put the Asian man in his proper place, and hence is this “attempt at satire”.
I don’t see this as an innocent “attempt at humor”, but the tip of an iceberg. Everybody pretends that the iceberg doesn’t exist, of course, but it happens to be a little too big to swept under the rug.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Absolutely right, John C. And it is for this reason that I think focusing on Tommy Brothers and trying to punish him for this silly little email is the wrong thing to do. We should be trying to address the systemic racism that exists, instead of focusing on its symptoms which — at least in this case — manifest themselves in poorly-written satire. Focusing our attention on Brothers is taking our attention away from the people who actually hold these views.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Ano, I stand by my word choice. You have half a brain, if not less, if you think that what Tommy Brothers did was acceptable in any way. He may not be a racist, for all I know, but that doesn’t make his actions okay. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s using “satire” as an excuse to sweep all of this under the rug. Furthermore, insinuating that my calling you an idiot is “worse” than Tommy Brothers’ racist e-mail is just laughable and proves my first point.
And Dartmouth11, only certain segments of the Asian population (East Asians such as Chinese, Korean, and Japanese) can be considered model minorities, while many other segments (Southeast Asians) experience poverty in comparable rates to African Americans and Hispanic Americans. If you think that this relative success of East Asians disqualifies Asian Americans from somehow experiencing prejudice, then you’re wrong. Standing by silently, which is what you’re espousing, will only perpetuate the negative stereotypes that still exist about Asian Americans, as John C. rightly pointed out.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Within the Southeast Asian community you’ve got all sorts, Harvard. Filipinos do much better than the Hmong. But even so, on average, most Asians are much better off than the average Hispanic or black. This doesn’t mean racism or stereotyping is acceptable — but from a non-normative standpoint, it explains why people find subtle racism towards other minority groups so much more offensive than similar attitudes towards Asians. Most of us can afford to suck it up.
I don’t think Dartmouth should have done nothing about the GGMM email; the response was proportionate and reasoned. But it’s this “OH MY GAWD ALL RACISM IS CREATED EQUAL” attitude — an attitude implying that we need to make an example of this email to defeat racist views towards Asians — which really turns me off. When all racism is equally offensive, none of it really is. Is the GGMM email offensive? Yes. Is it so offensive that it’s worth suspending Brothers and kicking him to the curb just to make an example of him for writing poor satire? I don’t think so. Let’s reserve that for morons who hang a noose on a black person’s door, or go around mocking random Asians for their ching chong language. Comparing this to the Holocaust, as some people have actually had the gall to do, is just retarded.
I’m not saying the email should’ve been ignored. This is obviously something people need to take a stand against. But what I find almost as offensive as the email is the notion that we need to make such a big fucking deal out of it. This is not even comparable to a lynching or Mein Kampf. Yes, subtle racism against Asians is intolerable. But taking out all our hatred for this racism on a stupid little email is directing our energy towards the wrong person. Save most of it for the next time Hollywood puts out a movie stereotyping Asians as the asexual slapstick Jackie Chan figure, or the next time a politician records a song lampooning “Bobby Jindal, the nerdy Paki.”
March 9th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Shutup you idiot.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I can’t follow Dartmouth 11’s reasoning whatsoever. Clearly President-elect Kim has much work to do to bring up the intellectual capabilities of Dartmouth’s graduates.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Wherever you graduated from sure prepared you to see shades of gray, John C.!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Dartmouth11, I think that I actually see your point. But I still disagree with your statement that “Most of us can afford to suck it up.” Racism is racism, and fostering an environment of tolerance and mutual respect is necessary for everyone, not just Asian Americans. An attack against Asian Americans, is in essence, also an attack against other minorities and all other historically marginalized subgroups. I also find your idea incredibly perverse that Asian Americans somehow need to tolerate greater doses of racism as a result of their achievements.
Yes, people’s condemnation of Tommy Brothers may seem excessively harsh or overly dramatic, but that’s because some of this “fuss” is necessary to show people that it is not acceptable to insult or degrade Asian Americans. You suggest that we save our anger and offense for when a large-scale prejudice is manifested against the Asian American community. Why should Asian Americans wait to become victimized? Isn’t it instead a lot better for everyone if little events like this are addressed with seriousness?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Incidentally, I might note that as a group, Jewish Americans are easily the most accomplished and powerful ethnic minority in the U.S., if not the world, but they have extremely low tolerance of anything viewed as even remotely anti-Semitic. In fact, many liberals believe that even legitimate criticisms of Israeli policies, not the Jewish people themselves, are too often silenced by accusations of anti-Semitism.
I wonder if Mr. Brothers might have gotten away so easily if he had targeted Yale’s Levin with similarly degrading “humor” based on some of the centuries-old stereotypes of Jews.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Yea. Which is why they bring back the Holocaust every couple of years just to remind everyone how much they suck.
On a side note: If this happened to black people, shit would be going down, holy fuck. There would be bitching left and right.
I was just hoping that Asians would be smart about it and turn the cold shoulder and just acknowledge the wrong but note that it’s better to move on and prove them to be wrong through other ways…not being a bitch.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Harvard, I don’t have an objection to condemning the email. What I strongly take exception to is the over-the-top nature of some (not all) of these condemnations. Not all racism is created equal. Ideally, we’d live in a world without racial stereotypes, where everyone is color-blind. But we don’t live in that world — we live in a world with all sorts of stereotypes and racist attitudes. Some are more damaging than others.
Is it terrible that some people (maybe not Brothers, but definitely whoever he meant to be satirizing) think Asians are just hardworking ching chong Chinamen who remit money home to villages and eat like uncivilized pigs? Absolutely. But I think it is far worse that there are people still out there massacring innocents in Sudan. It is far worse that we live in a society where being black or Hispanic automatically puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into college (if you’re rich and your parents are well-educated, you’ve got a huge advantage — but most blacks and Hispanics aren’t in these categories).
If we had unlimited resources and an unlimited attention span, I would say, yes, absolutely, let’s take on all these problems at once. But we live in a world of scarcity, and so we have to prioritize. I don’t like being stereotyped as the model minority, but I can live with it. As a non-racialist, I think it’s far worse that genocide is still being committed and that people are consistently being denied access to opportunity based more on accidents of birth than actual merit.
As an Asian, I suppose you could argue that I should care more about how affirmative action and horrid Hollywood stereotyping put me at a disadvantage than I should care about how societal stereotypes and economic background put blacks or Hispanics at a disadvantage. But I would say that’s a pretty racialist way of looking at things, and it’s not a worldview I’d like to embrace.
In short, yes, I think overall the response at Dartmouth to the GGMM debacle has been proportionate and merited. But a lot of the hysterical comments on Ivygate about how Brothers should have been suspended or about how this is comparable to the Holocaust I think do a terribly huge injustice to larger problems of racism. We need to prioritize; Hollywood stereotypes are a bigger problem than this. Systemically unequal access to opportunity amongst other minority groups is a bigger problem than Hollywood stereotypes. And genocide is a bigger problem than unequal access to economic opportunity. Placing all these problems on the same level and arguing they are all worthy of the same priority because they’re all racism is insane and yes, retarded.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I have to agree with John C’s point about Yale and president Levin. Isn’t it telling that student satirists at Yale didn’t disrespect him with such a juvenile display? Did the student satirists at Penn tell Judith Rodin to iron their shirts when she became the first woman to lead an Ivy League school? Poor judgement, idiocy, lack of funny bone–these are not plausible excuses. Brothers is an adult and should face the consequences, even if that only means he is to forever read a million internet posts that equate him with war criminals and white supremacy. He made his bed.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:21 am
D11, agreed. There are far worse problems than this e-mail in the world, but I think that you would also agree that it doesn’t diminish this e-mail’s significance. Even with a limited attention span, racism deserves notice. I would, however, say that a suspension to punish Brothers would not be outrageous, although maybe a bit harsh.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:12 am
No one on this page other than Dartmouth 11 has been comparing racial slurs to a genocide, so Dartmouth 11 is making a straw man argument.
One doesn’t have to be guilty of a genocide to merit suspension from college; dissemination of racially offensive material on campus would meet that criteria at many schools, although perhaps not at Dartmouth. Mr. Brother’s excuse is that it was meant to be a satire and he does not actually endorse the ideas in his email. We are giving him the benefit of the doubt, although many of course remain skeptical. While I think it’s reasonable to stop there, I also do not think it is at all “hysterical” to suggest that Mr. Brothers should have been suspended.
It strikes me as immensely hypocritical to recognize the pervasive nature of racism, which can range from the most subtle to the most malignant and overt forms, and at the same time to say that the best way to deal with it is to be a “post-racialist” ie. pretend that racial problems don’t really exist (unless of course it’s a genocide, in which case even Dartmouth 11 will pay attention). That would indeed be a very convenient solution for the group that wants to maintain the status quo, ie. the whites, but the fact is that most social problems of this nature tend not to disappear on their own unless the marginalized people speak up for their rights. Asian-Americans do need to speak up and fight back if they are to achieve equality.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I don’t think Tommy Brothers is a racist. I think he made a mistake. Some of my friends in this imagined “angry mob” of Asian students who spoke to him about the effect his comments had on their communities appreciate that his original intent was to name and dismantle racism. He did this poorly, of course, and what he came out with was over the line. He also didn’t own up to it at first, the first two apologies were not written by him and made the situation worse rather than better.
What are we dealing with in racism against Asians? I just want to point out that it wasn’t so long ago that the US was slaughtering people in Vietnam. That is history now, but we are still formed by that history. Acting in a way that judges people on their merit and not their race is the right thing to do, but we are still dealing with the repercussions of racialized conflict in this country. Even if we are post-race, we all, like Tommy have a pretty heavy list of racial slurs in some hidden grab-bag that we could slap together and send to all our friends if we felt that was necessary. What’s that all about? Knowing that my friends have that list sitting in their minds about my identity would definitely affect how I act around them. We may not be beating each other up over Asian racism right now, but we haven’t moved beyond it yet.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:12 am
I’m looking forward to the day I win the lottery and can retire in the Hotel Coolidge (Vermont) and avoid political debates altogether. I know, I know, I’m an Ivy League (Dartmouth College) graduate, and I’m supposed to be interested in Barack Obama and South Africa, but honestly most issues concerning racism will not be solved with education alone but will require a degree of spiritual reflection (i.e., Jesus Christ). I’m Asian-American, so I feel the sting of racism now and again, but I also understand that an Ivy League degree must be accented with some kind of spiritual reflection to enable any expectation of multi-cultural living (i.e., inter-racial marriage).
Tommy Brothers probably made a mistake, and now it’s up to the Ivy League and international press to label it as a mistake and not as an intentional evil.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Yeah, just to reinforce the fact that we’re NOT in a post-racialist society, as many people on this board have claimed, racism against Asian Americans has recently surfaced at Harvard too: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527104.
Now Harvard kids can’t feel all smug about Dartmouth and how Dartmouth doesn’t deserve Jim Kim, I guess.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
John C., I suggest you have a look at the other discussion we’ve had on this: http://www.ivygateblog.com/2009/03/dartmouth-students-jump-to-racist-conclusions-about-new-president/#comments
I count at least one comparison to the Holocaust, and several other comparisons to real atrocities like the forced labor in 19th century railroad companies and the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII. It’s just plain false equivalency to say “A racist message mocking common stereotypes is tantamount to the Holocaust/locking up people in camps for their ethnicity/forcing people to build railroads for low wages.”
I don’t know where you get the idea that I think our society is postracial, because it’s obviously not. I personally prefer a postracial outlook on things, but that doesn’t mean I think everyone has a postracial perspective. Surely you learned the difference between normative and positive statements at your alma mater?
The most important thing here is a sense of proportionality. That’s what’s sorely lacking among many hysterical responses to the issue. When you treat all racism the same way, you’re really just devaluing the worse kinds of racism. That’s unfortunate, but given the scarcity constraints on human attention spans and effort, to pretend we can afford the same sort of moral outrage for poorly-written satire as well as genocide really just means we wear ourselves out getting pissed off about relatively unimportant things, while more important things get ignored.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Dartmouth 11 — The flaws in your arguments are quite numerous but I’ll just mention a few that are painfully obvious:
The main point that I have been making, as well as others on this page, is that Mr. Brothers’ comments are sufficiently offensive that it is entirely reasonable to consider a suspension, which is actually not such a harsh punishment (He could be expelled, dismissed without a chance to re-apply, or permanently striken from the school’s record so that he couldn’t even claim to having ever attended the school, etc.). As I mentioned above, distribution of racist materials is in fact subject to disciplinary action at many colleges; the punishment is therefore proportionate to the offense and will also be consistent with the current practice at other schools. Furthermore, it is important that his actions were deliberate and premeditated; it was not as if he yelled out some racial slurs at his roommate while he was totally drunk. His sole defense is that this was meant to be a “satire”; some people buy it and some people don’t, but it’s not a blanket excuse that magically frees him from all the consequences of his actions. You keep on harping on the idea that racist slurs are not equal to a genocide, and I do give you credit for this unique and penetrating insight, but that’s not what we are discussing here; please get on with the program.
And also, please take time to carefully read my post again. I have taken the liberty of assuming that you consider yourself a “post-racialist”, since you said so yourself; I have not ever speculated on whether you consider our entire society to “post-racialist”. So please stop misquoting me. But you do use your “post-racialist” stance to make arbitrary value judgments about which racial offenses are worthy of your attention and which are totally trivial. I am calling your “post-racialist” perspective hypocritical and inconsistent with the reality, and therefore the value judgments you make are also invalid. It’s all very simple. Incidentally, for someone who is so “post-racialist”, you sure make a lot of references to your own race, as if your supposed Asian ethnicity should have any impact on your own credibility on this forum. Most other writers have not felt the need to clarify that they are Asian or whatever race they are.
I fully understand and sympathize with your problems with limited attention span and cognitive abilities and the consequent need to prioritize, ignoring everything except for something really, really, really big, like massacres and genocides and stuff. Fortunately, I do not suffer from such limitations and I suspect many of your colleagues do not, either, so please do not set limits for other people. It is really pretty rude.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Doesn’t matter how offensive or non-offensive the comments were, Dartmouth has no speech code. This means that there is absolutely no foundation for punitive action against the author. This flaw in your argument is, as you like to say, painfully obvious.
“I fully understand and sympathize with your problems with limited attention span and cognitive abilities and the consequent need to prioritize, ignoring everything except for something really, really, really big, like massacres and genocides and stuff. Fortunately, I do not suffer from such limitations and I suspect many of your colleagues do not, either, so please do not set limits for other people.”
This is one of the more idiotic things I have read so far in 2009.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:42 am
“The main point that I have been making, as well as others on this page, is that Mr. Brothers’ comments are sufficiently offensive that it is entirely reasonable to consider a suspension, which is actually not such a harsh punishment”
well your main “point” proves that you’re a fucking idiot, because brothers didn’t violate any college rules, therefore they would have a legal shitstorm (and also be the laughing stock of the entire higher education community) if they tried to suspend someone for doing something that everyone in any important position at dartmouth realizes is not that big of a deal. it is in fact the opposite of “reasonable” because he hasn’t broken any rules.
you do not receive the ggmm every day, so you have no context in which to understand the email. everyone who does receive it every day understands the context and understand that it is satire. you making any attempt to judge his intentions or the context of the message is like a 12th century monk telling a 21st century theologist they’re full of shit. you don’t have the full picture, you don’t have any grasp of the issue, so stop posting all over this page and numerous other blogs (yes i’ve seen you around), it’s like trying to listen to a small child telling an adult the world is flat. you simply do not, cannot, and will not understand the issue in any depth that would allow you to pass judgment on it. would i come into your home and see your wife drop something on the floor and come to the conclusion that she is a miserable klutz with severe motor impairments and that you should have her euthanized? probably not, because i’m not a moron and i know there are circumstances that i don’t understand, but i certainly hope that anyone who wishes something as terrible as a college suspension on someone they don’t know for doing something they don’t even understand (this being yourself) has someone else wish something equally terrible on them or their loved ones.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:23 am
It’s irrelevant whether Dartmouth has a speech code or not. If it doesn’t, it should seriously contemplate institute one, since this case proves beyond doubt a need for one. There could well be other people in the future spewing racial hatred under the guide of a “satire”. And none of this changes the fact that a suspension is a reasonable punishment proportionate to the offense in view of the current practice at other schools. Since you seem to like far-fetched comparisons, let me make a comparison to a Muslim country where a father killing his own daughter for sleeping with a westerner is considered socially acceptable. All I am saying is that it is reasonable to try the father for murder given what is in practice in other countries. Whether or that he can actually be punished under that particular country’s law is besides the point and might only say something about the backwardness of that country.
You are partially correct in that being a subscriber to GGMM would help me understand the context better, but the fact remains that this email does not qualify as a satire no matter how far you try to stretch the definition. The author came up with these ideas, wrote them down, had them reviewed by others in the group, and proceeded to mass-email them. Throughout this process, both he and at least some other members of the GGMM evidently saw some humor in these statements and thought people would like it. That’s what’s troubling. Not being totally stupid, I’m sure they could’ve foreseen at least some of the uproar that would follow, although they probably understimated it. They most likely figured that they could get away because they were calling this a “satire” and Dartmouth has no speech code. And they are in fact getting away for the most part. Now that I think about it, this is a pretty convincing argument for a revision of the campus rules.
I do not know what you are talking about by “posting on numerous other blogs”. Please stop lying. I think Dartmouth students should learn some honesty, humility, and respect for other people, particularly those groups that have been historically marginalized.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“thought people would like it.”
guess what? the actual list subscribers did like it. good thing you are not the arbiter of satire. public outcry only came from others, like yourself, who are not subscribers, which has created an environment where expressing support for freedom of speech at dartmouth branded you a racist…for about a week. thankfully now the issue has blown over.
but congratulations! you are the link between liberalism and fascism! and your level of infantile rhetoric and misunderstanding of the founding principles of this country demonstrate why you are not a student and could not be a student at this institution in the first place!
March 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I think most thoughtful readers will agree with me that d’10’s post above proves beyond any doubt what you might have suspected. That these guys are not even the slightest bit repentant, and while d’10 is not and does not speak for Mr. Brothers, there’s a real chance that all this “regret” and “apology” coming from the GGMM staff were just a pack of lies.
Isn’t it a pity that someone like d’10 will actually have a degree from an Ivy League university?
March 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
The main point that I have been making, as well as others on this page, is that Mr. Brothers’ comments are sufficiently offensive that it is entirely reasonable to consider a suspension, which is actually not such a harsh punishment (He could be expelled, dismissed without a chance to re-apply, or permanently striken from the school’s record so that he couldn’t even claim to having ever attended the school, etc.).
An email mocking stereotypes is not grounds for suspension in my view. Some sort of lesser disciplinary action, maybe — but it strikes me as going way over the top to call for the suspension of a student for making the mistake of writing bad satire. It’s a stupid and horrid mistake, but it does not rise to the level of writing something with the intent to actually spread hate.
I have taken the liberty of assuming that you consider yourself a “post-racialist”, since you said so yourself; I have not ever speculated on whether you consider our entire society to “post-racialist”. So please stop misquoting me. But you do use your “post-racialist” stance to make arbitrary value judgments about which racial offenses are worthy of your attention and which are totally trivial.
Hm, let’s see what’s arbitrary about this ranking:
The murder of 6 million people is worse than the murder of 500,000 people, which is worse than the unjust internment of 100,000 people, which in turn is worse than the prevalent stereotyping of 15 million people as a “model minority,” which itself is worse than a poorly-written joke email poking fun at said stereotypes, sent to about 1,000 people.
You can quibble about some of the rankings because obviously there’s some subjectivity involved, but I hardly see how this is arbitrary in any way. Not all sins are created equal; they are all wrong and often evil, but not in the same way nor to the same degree.
Incidentally, for someone who is so “post-racialist”, you sure make a lot of references to your own race, as if your supposed Asian ethnicity should have any impact on your own credibility on this forum.
I am merely acknowledging that most people in the world are not post-racial and draw conclusions about my opinions based on who I am, not just on the merits of my opinions alone. If I told you I was white, quite a few people would suggest I’m not in a good position to comment on this issue.
I fully understand and sympathize with your problems with limited attention span and cognitive abilities and the consequent need to prioritize, ignoring everything except for something really, really, really big, like massacres and genocides and stuff. Fortunately, I do not suffer from such limitations and I suspect many of your colleagues do not, either, so please do not set limits for other people.
Your successful conquest of the inherent limits of the 24-hour-day and the cognitive capacity of the human mind intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
You are partially correct in that being a subscriber to GGMM would help me understand the context better, but the fact remains that this email does not qualify as a satire no matter how far you try to stretch the definition.
Your opinion does not constitute fact, good sir.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:13 am
“Your successful conquest of the inherent limits of the 24-hour-day and the cognitive capacity of the human mind intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.”
this is amazing and hilarious. domination.
let’s have a satirical newsletter about clueless old people starting internet flamewars and “john c.” can be the first subject. then he can protest something that actually affects him.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Quoting the Harvard College Student Handbook, “The College defines racial harassment as actions on the part of an individual or group that demean or abuse another individual or group because of racial or ethnic background. Such actions may include, but are not restricted to, using racial epithets, making racially derogatory remarks, and using racial stereotypes.”
Yale College’s Undergraduate Regulation on Free Expression states: “In addition to the university’s primary obligation to protect free expression there are also ethical responsibilities assumed by each member of the university community, along with the right to enjoy free expression. If freedom of expression is to serve its purpose and thus the purpose of the university, it should seek to enhance understanding. Shock, hurt, and anger are not consequences to be weighed lightly. No member of the community with a decent respect for others should use, or encourage others to use, slurs and epithets intended to discredit another’s race, ethnic group, religion, or sex.”
According to the Princeton University regulations: “Expressions of racial or ethnic bias directed at individuals or groups undermine the civility and sense of community on which the well-being of the University depends. They devalue the distinctive contributions of the individuals affected and impair their ability to contribute their views and talents to the community and to benefit fully from participating in it. By alienating those individuals, they harm the whole community. The University calls on all its members to display the appropriate sensitivity and to challenge expressions of racial or ethnic bias whenever they encounter them. The University is seriously committed to disciplinary action against racial or ethnic harassment, as defined in “Respect for Others,” above. Procedures for resolving complaints or grievances relating particularly to racial or ethnic harassment are described on pages 19–20.”
Needless to say, Tommy Brothers’ email contained racial epithets, racial stereotypes, and produced “shock, hurt, and anger” in the community, and would have been subject to disciplinary action at any of these three institutions. Probably not an expulsion, and perhaps not even a suspension, but he would’ve at the very least gotten a formal reprimand with a promise for a severe penalty upon a repeat offense. But a suspension would have definitely been on the table, and would not have been considered outrageous. His email was not an email “mocking” stereotypes, but rather one propagating stereotypes under the guise of a “satire”. The laugh was at the expense of the Chinamen who work at the Panda Garden Rice Village Restaurant, let’s be honest here.
I would urge the responsible members of the Dartmouth Community to petition the administration to adopt a speech code similar to those in place at many of the most enlightened institutions of higher learning in this country.
I do not suffer from the kinds of cognitive impairments that allow Dartmouth’11 to process only one item at a time, and can comfortably track Darfur, the Holocaust, and Mr. Brothers’ email simultaneously. I apologize if this concept was too radical for Dartmouth’11 to grasp.
Dartmouth’10 is correct in that I won’t be a student at Darmouth. I applied to only seven carefully selected schools for college, including four Ivies, but Dartmouth wasn’t one of them. And I did end up at the Ivy of my first choice. There is still a chance that I may be at Darmouth as a professor, but again, I hope to do a little better than that.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
this is all rediculous. did the kid mess up by writing the comment? of course. does he deserve to be expelled/?????? of course not.
as a member of the asian community, as anyone else who is reading this is, its nothing that you havent heard before (unless you live under a rock). rise above it, the world isn;t a just place. that is not excusing mr brothers from making these comments, but to expell or even suspend this man would be completely corrupt and unjust.
get over it
March 13th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I must say that I agree fully with John C. It is obvious that this is the tip of an iceberg, indicative of lingering racism, and media stereotypes.
It is obvious that though we have progressed since the years de jure racism and mainstream bigotry, racism and hate are now couched in humor, satire, and parody. Regardless of whether this is an “attempt at humor” , as John C has discerned or innocent joking, merely reproducing racist sentiment gives it power. Each time a racist joke is made or accent is put on, even if in jest, it builds a foundation for more radical, less accepting speech–the gateway to open hate.
First Dartmouth Asians suffered from the humiliation of Bonny Lam (or Boney Ram as her name was reproduced in the D) and now this. But this is just the beginning. I see it coming, Dartmouth ‘11 sees it coming, John C may too see it coming: Once the newspapers have built the foundation of hate, it is not long before the Asian clubs are disbanded, asian studies are no longer offered. Before long, not only will asian men be subjected to the humiliation of not appearing on TV, but they will be relegated to the status of comedic prop–the hardly human inhabitants of a computer help store, a laundry mat, or any other of the stereotypical jobs attributed to asians.
But as members of a free and righteous nation, we follow Gandhi’s advice and judge a society judged by how it treats its most vulnerable.
If we cannot accept Asians and other minorities as equal humans; if we cannot allow them the home that they deserve by god given right; if we cannot respect our own constitution, then the only option for the enlightened members of our society is to protect these vulnerable minorities. We must remove them from our suburban colleges, so they will not be humiliated. We must shut down their local businesses, so they will not be stereotyped or de facto boycotted by innate racism. We must protect them, by moving them away from the wildly swinging fists of privileged white society.
It is only by isolating them from the onslaught of racism that we can nurture their growth, their flourishing–that we can set the foundation for a reasonable image. Until Dartmouth and the rest of privileged society can accept our cherished minorities, we must keep them occluded by the greenhouse gases, lying in wait for the melting of the iceberg.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Now that I have more time, I’ll comment on the minor points in d’11’s last post.
“An email mocking stereotypes is not grounds for suspension in my view.” Again, this was not an email “mocking” stereotypes. The laughter was clearly at the expense of the stereotypical Chinese and the President-elect. I doubt that disciplinary committees at other schools will be impressed by this “satire” excuse that you think is so clever.
“You can quibble about some of the rankings because obviously there’s some subjectivity involved, but I hardly see how this is arbitrary in any way. Not all sins are created equal; they are all wrong and often evil, but not in the same way nor to the same degree.” What I am calling arbitrary and simplistic is your binary value system, ie.
Worthy of attention = Darfur, the Holocaust, calling Bobby Jindal a “nerdy Paki” (incidentally, Bobby Jindal looks nerdy and talks nerdy so at least half of this seems factually correct to me)
Not worthy of attention and totally trivial = calling an accomplished physician scholar a Chinaman working at the Panda Village Restaurant.
Do you see any contradictions in your talk about “proportionality” and your binary value system?
“I am merely acknowledging that most people in the world are not post-racial and draw conclusions about my opinions based on who I am”
In other words, you are very conscious of other peoples’ perception of your racial characteristics and modify your behavior accordingly. You see humor in “jokes” containing racial stereotypes, which is an indication that you are acutely aware of other peoples’ racial characteristics and consider at least some of them acceptable targets of ridicule. Maybe you should stop claiming to be a “post-racialist”. You are like a vegetarian who eats eggs, cheese, fish, poultry, and sometimes red meat on special occasions and when she is out with other people.
I did not advocate a suspension for Mr. Brothers from the beginning. He has had the courage to come forward and apologize, and it is reasonable to let the matter drop at that point. What angers me is the people like Dartmouth’10 and Dartmouth’11 who minimize the seriousness of this offense and deny that this was even racist. Guys like these will never really feel sorry for offending other people unless they get their asses kicked out of the school (in which case they will feel sorry for themselves at least, if not for what they have done).
So it’s important to get the speech code in the university rules. If I had been at Dartmouth, I would’ve started a petition. If you are a Dartmouth student and agree with me, bring it up with your Asian student organization, and elicit cooperation from other minority organizations to pressure the administration before this incident gets forgotten.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“Now that I have more time, I’ll comment on the minor points in d’11’s last post. ”
and this explains why you are still a virgin…
March 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Again, this was not an email “mocking” stereotypes. The laughter was clearly at the expense of the stereotypical Chinese and the President-elect. I doubt that disciplinary committees at other schools will be impressed by this “satire” excuse that you think is so clever.
If you take the email seriously, you have to believe that a Dartmouth student who has spent a whole day flooded under the campus-wide coverage of a Korean-American being elected president of his university would somehow believe this Korean-American is actually a “Chinaman” who is part of a “Malaysian invasion” to take over the college. The email was stupid and so poorly-written that it was shocking more than funny that it’s almost worth punishing the guy just for it, but one thing it obviously isn’t is being serious. It’s mocking people who see all Asians as the same; the email intentionally features ludicrous statements in a poorly-thought-out attempt to make the satirical intent clear.
I have always said that the email was stupid and unnecessary — it should never have been sent out, and it served no real purpose because of how shittily it was written. But if it had been written properly, actually wittily mocking common stereotypes, I would have been fine with it.
Going by your logic, we should be boycotting Dave Chappelle and Russell Peters for stooping to use racial stereotypes in their stand-up routines. The only thing that sets Chappelle and Peters apart from Brothers is that they are good at satirizing stereotypes and he just sucks at it.
Do you see any contradictions in your talk about “proportionality” and your binary value system?
Again, you seem to be ignoring everything I’ve said. I’ve always said I’m happy with how the Dartmouth community overall reacted to the email (the fringe idiots in the Dartmouth Review excepted). Nobody called for the writer’s suspension or for a “rally against hate.” Nobody compared it to genocide or two previous injustices against Asians in America. They just called it out as stupid and unnecessary, and they were right. What I’ve taken exception to is the holier-than-thou reaction amongst a handful of people, especially in the comments section of this blog. These hysterics about how this is comparable to the Holocaust or the internment of Japanese Americans serve no purpose except to blow the issue out of proportion.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a cardinal value and ordinal ranking. Ordinally, this email is chickenshit. That doesn’t mean its cardinal value is zero; I have never suggested that the appropriate reaction was to do nothing. But the way some people, especially those outside Dartmouth, reacted was as if this email was a sign of a new Kristallnacht for Asians, and if we did nothing, before we knew it there’d be white people trying to take our civil rights away. That’s disproportional. You think I’m saying something is either worthy of our attention or it is not; what I’m really saying is that some things are more worthy of attention than others.
In other words, you are very conscious of other peoples’ perception of your racial characteristics and modify your behavior accordingly. You see humor in “jokes” containing racial stereotypes, which is an indication that you are acutely aware of other peoples’ racial characteristics and consider at least some of them acceptable targets of ridicule. Maybe you should stop claiming to be a “post-racialist”. You are like a vegetarian who eats eggs, cheese, fish, poultry, and sometimes red meat on special occasions and when she is out with other people.
That’s pretty amusing, considering one definition of postracialism I have heard from a Dartmouth faculty member encompasses the ability to joke about racial stereotypes (and this person was outraged by the GGMM email). Obviously postracialism means different things to different people. Let me clarify where I stand: being postracialist is not the same as being antiracialist. An antiracialist sees no value in a blog like Stuff White People Like because there are no — or there ought to be no — racial groupings in an antiracialist worldview. A postracialist recognizes that Stuff White People Like records the arbitrary biases of one grouping of humans commonly known as whites, and laughs at the arbitrariness of it all. To me, laughing at stereotypes of white people or Asians is like laughing at stereotypes about jocks, blondes, circus clowns, or politicians. They’re all just groupings of human people.
The power of my arguments, at least to my mind, does not change depending on who makes them. A good idea is a good idea. But let’s face it: in an environment where hysterical people are bitching about how one little email is comparable to genocide, my race is going to determine at least in part how people perceive my arguments. If you don’t care, good for you — but unfortunately far too many people do care. There’s a reason Chris Rock and Bill Cosby and Barack Obama can tell black men to pull their pants up and take some responsibility in the household, while George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich can’t, even though the same argument has the same validity either way — it’s because our society is conditioned to approach certain arguments from certain points of view depending on who makes them.
That long digression aside, if you read my comments again, you’ll notice I only referred to my race when it was relevant; from my point of view as an Asian, having lived in America, I’m not that bothered by being stereotyped as a model minority. It’s undesirable and I’d like to change it, but it’s not very high on my priority list. My argument derives some weight from my ethnicity in part because it is based on my personal experience.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Racist slurs that contain obvious factual errors and gross exaggerations are still racist slurs. People who refer to blacks as monkeys probably are well aware that they are not really monkeys. Deliberately getting the ethnicity wrong, e.g. a Chinese for a Japanese or a Korean or whatever, can be just another technique of put-down. One can argue forever whether the intentions were honorable and free of racial prejudice but ultimately there is only one person who knows with certainty. Even if there were an intent to satirize, that does not automatically exclude the possibility that there was also a co-existing racial bias or contempt for the Chinese.
Furthermore, most people, as well as leading institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, do not define racism based on the writer’s intent, but rather based on the content. If enough people see racism in the material, it is by definition racist. Ivy Gate appears to agree, judging by the titles, “Author of Racist Email Apologizes” and “Dartmouth Students Jump to Racist Conclusions”, and so do many of the people who posted on this board. Similar, albeit less serious, debates have taken place in the past about what constitutes art vs. pornography. The artist’s intentions are not really a major consideration; it depends on how others perceive it. Justice Potter Stewart once said regarding pornography, “I know it when I see it”. As with many things, your gut feeling is often the correct one.
I do not see much utility in prolonging the debate. As a friendly gesture, I would caution you from relying excessively on your persuasive powers, thinking that you can wiggle your way out of trouble all the time with some technical arguments. It won’t always work, and at some point, you will pay the price.
Once again, I strongly suggest to the Dartmouth students to take this opportunity to rally for a speech code. The administration has no legitimate excuse to deny it given that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all have such codes. If you fail to act now, you may be responsible for perpetuating an environment where unscrupulous individuals may get away with making offensive racist comments under the guise of a “satire”.