The campus-wide discussion was organized as a response to a joke published as part of The Indicator's Report Card section, which made an offensive allusion to Sean Bell, a young African-American man killed after being shot over 50 times by police officers in New York City. There had been growing concern among members of the BSU and other affinity groups about jokes in previous issues of The Indicator that repeatedly came at the expense of minority groups. The latest Report Card was the last straw.
The forum took place in the Octagon at 9 p.m. and despite being so close to the end of the semester and to final exams, the meeting had a large turnout. College students, faculty and staff members as well as Five College students crowded the room.
The discussion, moderated by Assistant Professor of Sociology and American Studies Carleen Basler, began with opening statements from Stephanie Gounder '08 and Stephanie Sneed '08, Indicator Senior Editor and BSU co-chair, respectively. After that, the floor was open for discussion between students and faculty members. The event had been preceded by the sudden appearance of "Best in Print," a pamphlet created by the BSU that Monday afternoon. The publication was a compilation of jokes that had been featured in earlier issues of The Indicator and other student publications which poked fun at members of generally underprivileged populations, from children in Uganda to minority college applicants.
The BSU's distribution of the "provocative" anthology, as a member of The Indicator described it, caught staff members by surprise and rendered some of them uncomfortable about the nature of the following evening's discussion. To address these qualms, representative of both organizations met on Monday to discuss the ground rules for the open forum and the topics they wished to address.
"We decided that discussion would not be about race in general, or race at Amherst. Instead, we wanted to give the opportunity for people to express their reservations about the joke," said Sam Grausz, '09, Editor-in-Chief of The Indicator at the time.
Though Grausz believed the joke was not racist in character, he thought it important to address the issue in a forum. The joke, he believed, was "racially insensitive," and it called for a larger discussion about how to appropriately handle the race issue through political satire.
Like the reactions towards the alleged offense in the report card and the expectations for the forum, reactions about its outcome were varied.
"We were not looking for an apology or a retraction; we were just laying down the facts, and some people couldn't handle it," stated Anthony Jack, '07, Octagon Manager and BSU member. "This is not about not being sophisticated enough to understand. Point blank, these jokes are racist. If you can't handle being called a racist, do not make racist comments."
Sneed felt the session was chiefly an investigation of social behavior. "The meeting was not about what we can do to fix The Indicator jokes. It was about how students had failed at making people feel like they were part of this campus," she commented.
To the surprise of the organizers, the discussion lasted over two hours due to the large turnout. "I didn't think anyone would come," stated Basler, who, happy to participate in an event she called "essential to the health of the college," had designed an extra credit assignment around the event to encourage students to attend. "On campus there is a dearth of willingness to discuss things out in the open. [Students] will do it in class, but at these events it is usually the same old faces every time."
As former Indicator Editor-in-Chief Isabel Duarte-Gray '09 acknowledged, this forum allowed for "conversation where people listened to other people," to take place.
Many people indeed came to listen, but perhaps they did not talk enough. "Some people call it being passive-aggressive. I call it people not owning up to what they believe," stated Jack about student life in the Amherst bubble. "Amherst reflects the real world in that people do not speak their minds."
But perhaps some things should not be said. "People were angry; we were in 'a moment.' This is the best time to exercise caution because people's words can speak to the intensity of emotions, not the integrity of their arguments," cautioned Basler.
Despite disagreements as to the effectiveness of the forum in encouraging conversations about race on campus, many believe that the event nonetheless had positive aspects with which one could walk away.
"As editors we can address these issues and take the themes of the discussion into consideration. As people, we took different things, I think," stated Duarte-Gray.
"People who ignore what happens on this campus purposely got to see what students face on a daily basis," said Jack. "The discussion showed faculty and administration that relationships between students are stressed along racial lines."
"We know these statements are not coming from any kind of vengeful act; they come out of ignorance and misunderstanding," concluded Sneed. "One meeting is not going to fix that, but it's a start."