...Anyway, so the panel members each made their presentations. The student body president told us that student opinion on the school song controversy fell into three major groups, as follows:
1. Those who were mortified and embarassed by the whole thing, and felt Pomona had gone off the Politically Correct deep-end;
2. Those who felt deeply that the school song was now an offense to black people and should be retired;and
3. Those who couldn't care less one way or the other (the vast majority of students seem to fall into this category).
The alumni at the panel discussion had a variety of opinions, but mostly seemed to feel that the decision to summarily suspend the school song was a bad call on the part of the poor college president, who sat in his chair and took our arrows quite patiently, I thought.
"This committee just sounds like something the government would do," a Libertarian blogger grumbled darkly.
Another woman stood up, seized the microphone, and crusaded for several minutes on the indignities she felt that she suffered as an Asian American, then inexplicably lurched into a discussion of her family's real estate holdings.
One insightful codger noted that the first sound motion picture was"The Jazz Singer" starring Al Jolson as a blackface performer, but that we weren't doing away with talking pictures (I thought that was a good argument)..
I waved the marital flag, asking rhetorically how many happy marriages had begun as gropings in the back seats of Fords, and had grown from ignoble beginnings to mature and stable families?
The 1972-73 president of the fraternity I had been president of from 1977-78 (Zeta Chi Sigma), defiantly rebuked the college president and announced in ringing tones, "I promise you Mr. President, That song will be sung!" A mutinous murmur went up from the crowd. After the meeting, we all adjourned to the party tents on the school quad to collect our box lunches.
Overall, it was about as dramatic an incident as is possible at Pomona College.
I genuinely think the world would be a better place if everyone were a Pomona College graduate. Not only would we all be a hell of a lot better educated, but there wouldn't be any rioting or glass-breaking when people got upset. Pomona College alumni don't get violent. No, we stroke our chins at panel presentations, then explore the issues over chicken ciabatta sandwiches on the college quad.
As an aside, here's my question: how did ciabattas get popular, anyway? Is it only in California, or are these sandwich rolls big in other parts of the country, too? I'm kind of curious to know the answer to this one, as I don't care for ciabattas too much, and I am hoping they will go out of fashion.
Anyway, the rest of the day went quite well. I met a bunch of old buddies, whom I wasn't expecting to see. Amazingly, they all looked like they were 50-ish, middle-class folks with cars and homes and jobs and kids. There's a shocker.
I'll get back to Buddhism later on this week.
All Hail Pomona, Hail!
Bye for now, Byrd in LA
Posted by wahzoh at May 5, 2008 10:40 AMEmpathy!
Posted by: Patrick at May 5, 2008 02:46 PMI would have to say that if anyone is offended by the song through knowing of it's ties to minstrel shows in the past then the song should be retired. It really doesn't matter if the song has direct racist references or not. It's just a song. For the school to continue to use it over the objections of people who say they are offended by it because of it's history is to continue to offend people for what purpose? To show that you will sing the song whether people are offended or not? To preserve the history, which is what people are finding offensive. Maybe a lot of people will miss the song. Is that more important than being sensitive to racism? Because that is what it seems to come down to. There really is only one appropriate response, ditch the song.
Posted by: clown hidden at May 6, 2008 12:33 PMHi, Phillip - well, yes, a lot of people are attached to it. That was my point in talking about the glee clubs and choral groups and traditional singing at the official events for the better part of a century. And from my point of view, it is silly for the college to "teach" students that they can essentially "stop traffic" by claiming to be offended by something that isn't clearly offensive (as the song itself clearly isn't).
Isn't the college just sort of teaching the students to be whiners in the absence of anything to actually whine about? Why take away the tradition if there's nothing offensive in the tradition itself? I don't get that. Everybody has something offensive in his or her closet (I know I do), so what?
The whole point of tradition is that it creates stability. It seems to me that if you're going to dismantle something that provides stabililty and tradition, then you need to have some kind of good reason to do it. But that's me.
OK, Back to Buddhismlater on this week.
Wahzoh
Posted by: Byrd in LA at May 6, 2008 01:24 PMSo if a woman at work is offended by a remark I consider innocous it's not sexual harrasment. I believe the way the law stands if I look at her in a way she doesn't like it;s harrasment. How is this any different what gives you the right to tell someone else that they should not be offended. In principle I don't see how you can. In reality it depends on how many people and how offended they are by the song. If enough of them want to go out in the street and block traffic they may be arrested and Pomona may develope a reputation as a preferred college for the Klu Klux Klan. My guess is that it will blow over. And my opinion is you could do with a better song anyway.
Posted by: clown hidden at May 7, 2008 04:29 PMI might as well add one other thing as for banning motion pictures being a good counter -argument it would be that picture with the central dipiction of a man in black face and although there are other dipictions in film of black face in flm and I believe that some recent movies have given it more of a historical treatment I don't find that film or the later remakes to be shown much and I think that anytime some one is going to broadcast them I think they consider that.
Posted by: clown hidden at May 7, 2008 06:11 PMWow! It scares me to think that there are actually people on this planet so cowed (Oops! Did I just offend cows?) by PC that they think anything that offends anyone, anywhere at any time must be stopped. By the way, I am a lawyer and as far as I know it still isn't a crime to look at a woman even if she doesn't like it.
As they say, "The law is an ass." If a law or position is ridiculous, you don't have to mindlessly accept it and agree with it. You can fight to change a law. If someone takes an patently absurd position, then you can fight that too.
If I understand it, the song itself is completely inoffensive, except perhaps to Atheists (it does mention "heavens"). Someone discovered that 100 years ago it might have been song in what today would be an offensive show; therefore, the inoffensive song must be banned because of something that happened 100 years ago. I guarantee there isn't a person alive today who could have seen or heard the song in an offensive minstrel show context. It is inane and shallow thinking to suggest that everything that offends someone, somewhere must be stopped. You actually don't have a right, contrary to popular belief, to never be offended.
Posted by: FSU Grad at May 14, 2008 09:18 AMYou can be as offensive as you wish to be, and many often are. I don't try to explain the government or the laws as being ethical or moral as neither are. I'm not trying to force any one to do anything. If I think you're offensive or insensitive that is just what I think.
Posted by: clown hidden at May 16, 2008 08:27 AM