Gothamist: Cartoon Offends Columbia University Students

donna

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:27:14 -0500

columbia university i agree is very racist especially among black people I would not recommend this school to anyone. Donna

ted

Fri, 27 Feb 2004 04:42:31 -0500

"As a self-proclaimed "alternative" paper, i.e. independent but still fitting squarely in a genre???" I'm confused. Which genere does The Fed fit into again?

honey

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:55:42 -0500

my bad on getting the fed and the federalist mixed up. the comic still crossed a line, but I am not saying they should be silenced.

eric

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:08:03 -0500

I am glad that such attitudes are on public display. It borders free speech violation by targeting, but still I don't think it crosses. We are all free to say nigger as such or in twelve thousand other ways. Blacks and others are free to get mad at it or not. Maybe one day people will (esp. in an nyc or ivy league context) stop confusing education with intelligence, urban with urbane, and sense of place with warped parochialism. Whatever real smartypantsness and freespeechmongering that they claim, by definition, should not require such a disclaimer as they gave to introduce the cartoon. As a self-proclaimed "alternative" paper, i.e. independent but still fitting squarely in a genre???, they strangely don't provide disclaimers on other topics that could rankle. rock on, players, rock on. I love America, it's just these dang Americans that cause problems by focusing on a nominally defeated class of people...ivy league smarts at work, while many people not black have just looted your 401k over the past few years and now threaten to pull the 50 cents a month you'll get from Social Security. it's not about race at the core. never has been. but man, what a cool distraction it is, huh.

ned

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:48:06 -0500

Man, Jack, you love ending with those analogies and metaphors. Personally, I think a student publication is the perfect place to experiment with material and hopefully gain the insight and experience necessary to attain the competence you value. These students are not professionals. I know plenty of the crap I wrote for the Fed in my years there was just that - crap. But having written it has made me a better writer. So I don't think we should be faulting them for not being up to snuff in the realm of satire. Just because not everyone can pull it off doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Also, when satire or parody is done correctly, even by a competent comedian, chances are, someone will still take offense to it. The ideas conveyed may be what you think about, but that won't be true for everyone.

Columbia Journalism School

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:34:37 -0500

The Fed (Columbia University) 2/04: In Honor of Black History Month we give you Blackey Fun Whitey. Black people do even more crazy crap, but don't worry about it until next February. Gawker: l/l9: Hey! It's Black History Month! And it's leap year, too, so we get a special day of blackness in the media......Here's an in-depth report that I like to call "Black History Month: What's Up With Black People These Days?" I find the tone eerily similar. I mean, I'll still read both gawker and The Fed, It's obviously harder to think about other peoples feelings than it is to think about oneself. I wish some people could be honest here.

Lux

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:54:49 -0500

Oh, Ned went and beat me to making that point. Go Ned.

Lux

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:52:40 -0500

93 is 11 years ago. I graduated from Columbia in 2003. In my time at Columbia, the Fed was not a conservative paper, or a liberal paper, as has been pointed out. If you are still convinced that the Fed is a conservative, racist paper, I urge you to check out their website and read recent articles: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed/v2

ned

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:49:07 -0500

Actually, I'm pretty sure I went to the same Columbia University you did, only years later. See, around 1998, the staff of the ultra-conservative Federalist lost interest in the publication. Before the funding lapsed and the organization evaporated, two students moved in and basically took over the abandoned organization, shortening the name to the Fed, completely rewriting the mission statement and redirecting the paper. Since then, it has been run as alternately an apolitical forum for anyone to express their views or an attempt at humor and satire. If you're curious as to how the Fed has changed in the last 11 years, you can check out the paper's homepage, which includes archives from after the change in management. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed/v2 Or you can keep thinking what you've been thinking, but I had to try.

honey

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:24:31 -0500

I don't know which Columbia University you went to but when I was there from 89-93, the Fed's staff overlapped witht he membership of the college republicans. Offensive and racist sounds about right for this cartoon, especially considering the source. Would they run one that opened with "jews were invented as a way to use up empty oven space by the germans". That's not funny and as for thought provoking... . The only thought their crap provokes from me is that those fed/college republican types at Columbia haven't changed a bit and are more interested in making people of color feel unwelcome in what they wish was still a lily-white institution than in engaging in real dialogue about "racial" issues on campus and in society.

honey

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:24:02 -0500

Jann

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:47:48 -0500

Who says you have a right NOT to be offended? Offending people is sometimes the best way to get people off their butts and passionate about something.

ned

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:19:47 -0500

First off, I don't think the cartoon was racist. Not very well-executed, definitely, but not racist. And I think the bit in the last frame about not having to worry about black people or African American history until next February is a great point about a flaw in pandering heritage months that no one is addressing. But what troubles me most are the arguments that this shouldn't have been run in the first place because it is offensive. I would much rather live in a world where people can run the risk of offending people and those offended can respond than a world where people stop themselves from trying to make a point like this - as poorly executed as it was. If people shy away from making challenging statements because they're afraid they'll piss people off and be accused of not being sensitive enough, then we're headed down a dangerous path. And one last point. A cartoon isn't inherently offensive. Nothing is. Try to keep some perspective on this. Just because most people would agree that something is offensive doesn't make it a fact. I personally find "Family Fear Factor" offensive, but there are plenty of others who don't. You're free to get offended, but don't assume that just because you and all your friends feel that way, then it's a characteristic inherent to what has offended you. And in the interest of full disclosure, I am the former publisher of the Fed, which is neither conservative nor liberal.

Michelle

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:07:18 -0500

they already introduced their cartoon with a warning. if they realize they need to put up a warning, they realize there's something wrong about what they're writing and could offend people. why not just leave it alone and not publish it instead? that is why i say - it was unnecessary!

Jonathan

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:03:17 -0500

As a South African not living in NYC, I know nothing about the internal politics of this STUDENT publication. But seeing that freedom of speech is a big part of your constitution you should rather celebrate your freedom and diversity, than focus on this in a negative light. Racial humour is a powerful tool to build racial bridges. You just have to be mature enough to see it as satire.

Nik

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:33:25 -0500

I totally agree with Jack opinion, he said all so realistic that his opinion is really good, and I also like this well designed blog. My friend also once told me for one blog which is: News

Mike

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:46:55 -0500

Actually, while a majority of the writers on the Fed may be flamingly liberal, the Fed itself is an unbiased forum. The Fed will publish liberals and conservatives alike. The only requirement is how effectively written the piece is. Unfortunately this standard was not applied to graphic submissions. This huge mistake has shown a flaw in the Fed's policies which have since been changed And just to be a stickler for details, all but one who voted on the comic were under 21.

candleblue

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:49:11 -0500

I actually found the cartoon funny. I am a racist and will burn in hell forevermore.

West Coaster

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:36:01 -0500

Gothamist's race postings are hot, hot, hot!

autumn

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:06:21 -0500

What exactly does my spelling have to do with this issue? I spelled two words incorrectly, does that make everything I say worthless? Grow up. Try to think about what is being discussed.

Spel Chek

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:48:17 -0500

Hey, autumn. Not only is it "definately" "contraversial", but it's definitely controversial as well. If you write for a campus newspaper, who cares if you can spell?

larry dvm

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:36:06 -0500

"Pain?" C'mon.

autumn

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:34:44 -0500

michelle- I don't understand that logic. Why would an apology mean that they knew the cartoon would cause pain to people? They apologized because they realize they made a mistake, and they regret it. If you mean the disclaimer, that was added to let the readers know that not everyone on the staff wanted to print it. It was a very contraversial decision.

Michelle

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:23:45 -0500

i think it was simply unnecessary. and seeing they apologized makes you think they knew it wouldn't really be funny to everyone.

autumn

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:20:20 -0500

to RIO- no, the cartoon should not have been printed. But I can assure you that the editors never claimed this was all "in harmless fun." If you take the time to read the apologies, or contact the editors themselves (thefed@columbia.edu), you will see that they are truly sorry.

larry dvm

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:17:24 -0500

They were trying to be liberal and anti-racist, only they were not good enough at satire to pull it off. Give 'em a break.

D

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:48:10 -0500

sea tortoise: "they're just kids who had a lapse in judgement." really? twenty-one year-old college seniors who can vote, drink, buy porn and serve in the military are "just kids"? why do they get a pass on their insensitivity for this? do you not become an adult until you can rent a car without paying a penalty? what about the thousands of other "kids" who wouldn't have run the cartoon? are they just mature for their age? lapse in judgement, yes. kids being kids, no.

jen h.

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:59:29 -0500

Okay, so it was poorly executed satire. Comedy is hard. If it bends, etc. Now they just need to pull a Conan and "apologize," with tons of sarcasm.

sea_tortoise

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:47:03 -0500

This is also something the Fed wrote. The Fed is neither conservative, nor racist; and people spreading more invective doesn't help such a touchy subject. You have to acknowledge that they're just kids who had a lapse in judgmement, are sorry for what they did, and certainly never deserved the vehement rebuttal they got (posters with vague threats outside their dormrooms).

RIO

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:59:37 -0500

To the poster who referenced the Chris Rock 'n---as vs. black people' joke. I'm black, and I think Chris Rock (and any other comedian) is lame for needing to use that word as a crutch to make a joke. I don't think the joke is funny, and I do consider it offensive. And for the record, I have completely shut down and read the riot act to black people who have used the n-word to me in private conversation as though it were harmless slang. It's not. When I hear it in a "tough guy" movie, I wince. When I hear it in a rap song, I cringe. I don't like it, so please don't assume that because one (or many) ignorant black person has decided to use this word, that it's okay for the rest of us. It's not. As for the toon, it's over-the-top, and the editors should have known better. The fact that they didn't, and claim it was all in harmless fun, is what troubles me the most. So much for New York being the "liberal epicenter of america." ha!

Ari

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:22:35 -0500

Yes Matte... how broad minded and NON racist of you to declare all the CU kids rich & white. Very openminded. {read: contemptible sarcasm}

autumn

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:12:42 -0500

As a writer for The Fed, I can assure you that we are definately not a conservative paper. It is in fact very liberal. Anyone who has taken the chance to actually READ it will have figured that out by now. The cartoon is a satire, albeit not a very successful one. It was never intended to be racist, and I can assure you, as a minority, that not one of the staff members are racist in any way.

Beth M.

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:18:43 -0500

pictures? Day 1 Day 2

gerrard

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:13:17 -0500

I think it's a pretty funny comic strip as I can't imagine it's not intended as satire. What's offensive about it? The claim that black people were invented in the 1700s? Come on now. People just love any chance to wear the "Victim" hate.

optimus

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:25:37 -0500

Okay, fine, fine. The whole idea came from that article. I wanted to transcribe it, but can't find it. I'm like a well-meaning Jayson Blair.

larry dvm

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:23:10 -0500

You know what's really offensive are those Thirteen commercials with Bobby Rivers (and others) murmuring, "Umoja . . . " The hell?

optimus

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:20:54 -0500

(With a nod to Shalom Auslander, whose work, The Mathematics of Comedy, preceeded my research) ;)

optimus

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:15:02 -0500

What The Fed needs to understand is the Joke Appropriateness Prediction Equation (JAPE): A = T / (TSS) * L where: TSS = Teller-subject similarity, that is, how (racially, ethnically, culturally, etc.) similar the joke-teller is from the joke-subject. L = Levity. How light-hearted the matter joked about is. T = Time. How much time has passed since the matter joked about. So, a sample joke: A Scotsman and a Jew go to a restaurant, and at the end of the meal, the Scotsman amazingly annouces that he'll pay for the bill. The next morning, the newspaper reads: "Jewish Ventriloquist Murdered in Alley". Why is this offensive? Let's parse it a little. First, TSS. I'm part Scottish, but not at all Jewish. So, I might get a little break on the TSS, but considering the joke is really on Jews, not Scots (except perhaps our penchant for violence), I would say TSS is pretty low. Second, L. It's about picking up a tab, but levity is still low because it deals in Jewish stereotypes which have been used in pretty recent memory to justify some godawful atrocities. A little hint: 'L' is always low when it jokes about a characteristic used to justify genocide. Finally, T. In this joke, time elapsed is low. It is implicitly situated in the present. So, with low TSS and L and low T, the joke is offensive. Re-parsing it as a Scottish joke, though, it is less offensive. Let's say it read this way: "A Scotsman goes out to a dinner with friends, and after the huge meal, to the astonishment of friends, is heard to announce that he'll be picking up the cheque. The next morning, the headlines read: "Scotsman Arrested For Murder Of Ventriloquist." TSS would now be high, as I would be joking exclusively about my own ethnic kin. Levity would be high, as stereotypes about Scotsmen are (at least comparatively) harmless. Time would still be high, but that's OK, because the high levity and TSS cancel it out. So, a few notes: ON LEVITY: Jokes about herpes, funny; about AIDS, not funny. ON TIME: Jokes about Mesopotamian slavery, funny; about American slavery, not funny. ON TSS: Jokes told about jews by jews, funny; jokes told by white people about jews, not funny. (Think about Chris Rock's 'niggas vs. black people' being told by a white person and you understand TSS.)

jake

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:53:28 -0500

yep- if your comment is just dissing people who have commented before, rather than commenting on the issue, it will be deleted. which is not to say you can't disagree. let me give you an example: will be deleted: "x, you are such a shithead, coming as you do from a white, privileged background- i can't believe you are such a racist bastard, etc..." will not be deleted: "i can't believe how racist these overeducated white kids at columbia are- i mean, this cartoon wouldn't have gotten printed even in the klan newspaper."

duckboat

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:24:16 -0500

If I warn that my post here is going to be offensive, will it still be deleted (as per the admonition above)? Just want to make sure before I spend time typing it.

Ruidh

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:01:26 -0500

Egads, have we all lost our sense of humor. I had to laugh out loud at the ridiculousness of the very first sentance "Black people were invented in the 1700's." That should be a big whack from the cluestick of the satire here. And what does it satirize? The "soundbite" approach to Black History month. The statements themselves are just too ridiculous to take seriously.

margarita

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:51:22 -0500

Why should it matter if it's a conservative paper? Since it's not, I guess it's fine, right? This is ridiculous. It's obvious what the cartoon was trying to do. the yada yada yada guy is right, tho. It's just tremendously unfunny. They shouldn't have printed it, but the response is way out of control. "Many protesters held signs reading 'I Have Been Silenced.'" There's actually a difference between being offended and being silenced.

zakky

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:09:28 -0500

know why it's always the cartoons that cause controversy? because no one reads the stories. (or at least, very few people read the stories.) gothamist is right: there are often some chilling sentiments expressed in the text of student papers, but they rarely cause the outrage of a well placed cartoon.

matte

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:04:18 -0500

I suppose it comes as a surprise that a bunch of privileged caucasoid college kids would print a blatantly offensive cartoon in their school paper? I say give them some time, after four years at Columbia, I'm sure they'll find far more subtle and eloquent ways to communicate their racist tendencies.

Lux

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:25:45 -0500

This is The Fed.

Andrew

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:11:23 -0500

here's a link to the actual comic if you want to judge for yourself: here

Lux

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:08:24 -0500

And by "there" I mean "at Columbia," not "at the Fed." I knew people who worked for the Fed, but I was never a staff member.

Lux

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:07:06 -0500

Wait, what? Since when has the Fed been conservative? During my four years there, it was just a less than successful attempt to be the Onion. I think it may have started out as a conservative paper, like... eight million years ago, but in its present incarnation it's just a humor paper that occasionally (and sometimes more than occasionally) misfires.

jen h.

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:47:55 -0500

At first it sounded like The Boondocks satirizing African American History Month and general ignorance about Black folks. Coming from a conservative student paper, however... ugh. Too bad Columbia didn't use this as a jumping off point for more discussion and perhaps a little enlightenment.

Yada Yada Yada

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:40:59 -0500

This is confusing -- what do you mean by it? "Oy. It seems that most students find it distressing, even though the newspaper listed various warnings that it might be found offensive." It seems you're suggesting that the students shouldn't be distressed simply because they were "warned," as if warning offers the warner some blanket license to offend. Couldn't it just be that the editors were right all along -- they thought the cartoon was offensive, and lo and behold, it was!?!? The Federalist by the way is not simply "edgier." It's the conservative/neocon paper at CU, which has something to do I'm sure with student reaction. It's not the Jester. My guess is many students feared that the cartoon secretly (or not so secretly) reflected the beliefs of some of the paper's staffers, adding to the offense. And worst of all, the cartoon is just not funny, not even in a shock-me, David Chappelle sort of way.

jake

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:25:22 -0500

this reminds me of the time i used a series of asian poronographic images to advertise an art show at columbia during our senior year, and the next day got called into the dean's office to explain myself- since i used school money to make the fliers and the show was on school property. i made this whole long speech about artistic freedom and shit like that, and afterwards the dean gave me a long look, and to her credit said "cut the crap, jake- i'll give you an hour to get those posters down." of course, i promptly obeyed.