The Kappa Sigma fraternity at Duke University threw a Feb. 1 Asian-themed party called “Asia Prime,” in which the predominantly white frat brothers and their guests were invited to wear stereotypical Asian clothing to fit the party’s theme. When members of Duke’s Asian Students Association and other offended students found out about this case of gross cultural appropriation, they spoke out against it by posting pictures from the party featuring obscured faces of some of the party’s actual attendees.
Though many students agreed the party theme was insensitive and called for punishment of the fraternity, some disagreed with the way in which the protest itself was handled. Indeed, it is simple enough to speak out against such a blatantly racist theme, but it is decidedly more difficult to productively combat the surrounding issues.
This inevitably prompts questions: Was it immature to post pictures from the actual party? Is there a more effective way in which students could have protested the event? In order to answer these questions, we must think about how we normally react to social insensitivity.
Many people I know would react with shock or disappointment upon discovering the existence of an event like the Asia Prime party. Friends of mine would post angry statuses about the offense on Twitter or Facebook, while others would complain privately to their friends about overprivileged, racist fraternity “bros.” Personally speaking, I love to complain privately about people who offend me simply to get it off of my chest.
But complaining to my close friends about being wronged does nothing to initiate a useful conversation with the perpetrators to try to resolve the issue. For example, if the Asian-themed party took place at Brown instead of Duke, I would probably discuss the event with a couple of people, maybe email a dean and then sort of forget about it. Merely complaining can thus become a method of forgetting — a conversation stopper that does not engage a wide public dialogue and thus has a small impact. It would make me feel better, but it would accomplish little else. And instances of racism or other structural wrongs committed against minorities demand much more than complaints on Twitter.
So how should one respond to any instance of perceived social injustice such as a racist-themed party? Let’s revisit the Duke case. Members of the Asian Students Association were right to campaign against the fraternity and demand a response. The students’ campaign was successful, as the fraternity has been suspended by both Duke and its national organization. But there is still dialogue to be had.
The poster campaign against the party and fraternity is the result of righteous indignation on the part of angry students. Once the anger cools down and both sides gain distance from the issue, the two opposing sides must work together to prevent another similar conflict from arising. No media source has reported any direct communication between the fraternity and offended students. Engaging in a direct discourse would prove to be a productive manner of openly dealing with the issue and would lead to mutually resolving the problem. If there is no communication between the two disputing parties, then the conflict necessarily becomes a competition in which one side has to be declared the loser.
This combative mode of resolving problems, especially structural problems that hit close to home for a lot of people, is counterproductive. Even though I believe the Duke fraternity’s actions were insensitive and extremely hurtful, it deserves the chance to work toward a solution to its mistake.
To be fair, I am not suggesting that an offended group, which is usually a minority group with a right to be offended, should hold back from expressing its frustration. Whether it’s campaigning through posters or contacting a university’s officials, the expression of indignation certainly has a place within the communicative process of social justice. But a successful conversation cannot end with anger — it must end with a resolution from both parties involved. Respectful and direct communication between the parties is necessary. This is the case for the Duke situation and for any personal dispute.
I concede cases exist in which the offended party may feel unsafe communicating directly with its perceived oppressors, and that is a valid sentiment. For most cases, though, it is appropriate to confront an issue in a straightforward manner in order to get past anger and come up with solutions. Many opposing parties would be surprised to discover that, while social injustice is advanced by individuals, social justice can only exist through a mutual understanding between groups.
David Romero ’14 doesn’t like going to parties anyway and can be reached at david_romero@Brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
