Chatham Student Activism Blog

Report of the Faculty Committee to President
Barazzone on the Recent Controversies

Introduction

This has not been an easy time for the students involved in the controversies that prompted the creation of this committee. At the outset, the committee wants to commend both student activists and the Communiqué staff for their hard work, and their willingness to guide us through a thicket of difficult issues. While recognizing that mistakes have been made along the way, we greatly admire the engagement, determination, and professionalism that students have displayed.

Narrative

At the beginning of the fall semester 2007, some number of Chatham students attended what is known as a “bro party” at a CMU fraternity. Bro parties are one iteration of racially-themed parties. Short for “Ghettos, Bros and Hos,” they are gatherings in which people emulate Black culture at the same time that they deride it. The chair of the
Chatham Student Government Diversity Committee found this behavior to be offensive.
On November 1 she held a student forum to discuss such parties and explain why they were offensive.

On November 13, this student received a nasty, racially constructed letter sent anonymously through the campus mail. On November 16, the President’s office organized a meeting in the chapel to condemn both bro parties and anonymous letters. These two issues—bro parties and anonymous letters—formed the basis of a rapidly escalating confrontation between a self-generated student coalition and some members of the Communiqué staff over how to cover these issues. This confrontation was an inflammatory mix of personal animosities, disagreements about the meaning of bro party attendance and on-going tensions over access to the Communiqué. Both the substantive disputes and the personal anger were expressed at the Student Affairs round-table on November 28. That confrontation led to a meeting on the morning of November 29, organized by the coalition.

At that Thursday morning meeting, it became clear to faculty members present—both those who had not been involved and those who had long been involved—that the sense of personal assault had escalated to the point where the discourse among students was no longer productive. That led to the President’s request for a “cooling off” period and the creation of this committee.

The Committee has read all the materials sent to it by interested parties. We have interviewed students, staff, and faculty. We have tried to peel away the layers of accumulating issues and to separate substantive concerns, institutional concerns and personal concerns. On the basis of this admittedly imperfect and cramped process, we have arrived at the following conclusions.

Findings

I. Racially themed parties are racist. They may seem like harmless entertainment; they are not. In performing racial stereotypes, the participants adopt hairstyles, behaviors, dress and speech patterns that mock African Americans. This kind of entertainment, which rests on stereotypical performance of blackness, harkens back to nineteenth and twentieth century minstrel shows, in which white men lampooned African American culture. The minstrel tradition parodied black dress, dance, speech and song, likewise relying on degrading stereotypes. Let’s be clear: whether openly expressed through intimidating and harassing actions, overt denial of civil rights, or cloaked in the guise of entertainment, disgracing, demeaning and disrespecting an entire category of people is racist.

This does not mean that Chatham students who attended the “bro party” at CMU are racist. But it does mean that Chatham disapproves of that behavior. While Chatham University cannot stop attendance at such events on other campuses, those whose attendance becomes public knowledge should expect both community disapproval and the possibility that they will be perceived as racists.

As an educational institution, we embrace the on-going need to discuss the meaning of symbols and behaviors whose power and context are often not studied or fully understood.

II. Anonymous letters are cowardly and unproductive. As President Barazzone indicated at the chapel forum, they create an atmosphere of intimidation that is totally unacceptable. As individuals and as an institution, we condemn them.

III. Newspapers have both editors and publishers. In the case of the Communiqué, the editor and her staff run day-to-day operations with the help of their advisor. They determine format, recurring features and coverage. They determine what stories to cover, how to cover them, how much space to give them and where to place them. In the case of the Communiqué, the University is the publisher. As such, it sets the mission of a newspaper. That mission touches on purpose, ethics, accountability, as well as links to the community. Once the University, in concert with others in the community, sets the mission, it then steps back so as to allow the Communiqué to operate with the independence necessary for a functional press.

The institution was remiss in not more energetically exercising its publishing role. We left a new, understaffed paper and its off-campus, part-time advisor to struggle alone. There were missteps, but published editions of the Communiqué clearly indicate that its editor and staff, while exercising their right to shape the paper, have worked hard to provide fair and balanced coverage.

IV. The committee is disturbed by the breakdown in civility that has taken place on campus amidst the recent swirl of rumor mongering, innuendo, personal attacks, anonymous accusations, and threatening language expressed in public statements, private email communications, and on Facebook pages. The committee wishes to remind the community of the Chatham University Honor Code:

The standards of honor at Chatham require that all Chatham students residing on Chatham’s campus act with intellectual independence, personal integrity, all relationships, and consideration for the rights and well being of others. As citizens of the campus community focused on education, students must accept certain obligations that accrue by virtue of such citizenship. Individual rights are ensured to the degree that these rights require a respect for the rights of all within the community to the same extent.

The university is committed to creating an educational community that is inclusive and safe. We treasure the freedoms of thought and expression that protect difference of opinion and robust debate. We have standards of community behavior that prohibit racism, sexism, discriminatory harassment, or violence. These commitments may sometimes scrape against each other. When they do, every member of the community must both respect the right to express honest differences of opinion through civil discourse and reasoned debate and report unacceptable behavior to the proper institutional authority, be it the Conduct Board, the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Director of Human Resources, or the Office of Public Safety.

Insisting on one’s own rights while acknowledging those of others is a difficult balance to find and an uncomfortable one to maintain. But find it and maintain it we must.

Recommendations

I. Commission on Multicultural Affairs

The Committee recommends to the President that she establish a Commission on Multicultural Affairs composed of students, faculty and staff. It should be constituted at the beginning of the spring 2008 semester and report to the community by Spring Break. The task of the Commission will be to articulate an institutional and educational climate in which all feel safe and valued. This may involve changing, improving, enhancing or clarifying both institutional structures and processes and educational content and practices.

II. Community Ombudsman

While we affirm that students can and should refer Honor Code concerns to Conduct Board, we also recognize that this is difficult and should not necessarily be the first and certainly not the only institutional recourse for community members to resolve conflicts. In the short term, we recommend that David Phillips, Vice President for Student Affairs, be designated as the Community Ombudsman. The Community Ombudsman will be the temporary receiver and recorder of community concerns, and will refer these concerns to the proper institutional authorities as deemed appropriate.

III. Mediation Opportunity

Students directly involved in the events of the last month have endured pain, isolation, a sense of helpless frustration and anger. This is partly the result of strong people engaged in fierce disagreement; it is partly the result of misunderstanding; it is partly the result of the corrosive power of incivility.

The Committee recommends that the President make mediation resources available for those who would like to try to understand the wounds of their encounters. This is not an easy task and we recognize the courage of those willing to participate. We recommend that the President mobilize the resources of both Student Affairs and the Center for the Study of Conflict.

IV. Recommendations to the Communiqué

The Committee recommends that the Communiqué staff, should, in addition to the instructor of the news writing classes, have an on-campus advisor to act as mentor and advocate. The Communiqué should work to better integrate the paper into the campus community as a student organization. At the same time, the community needs to better recognize its obligation to actively engage with the paper both as readers and as responsible contributors. We strongly affirm that a student newspaper, like all newspapers, must strive to be an independent voice.

The strength of a community is its ability to value its members, acknowledge its shortcomings, and strive for improvements that will benefit individuals and the community as a whole. We hope this report reflects the committee’s commitment to the realization of these goals.

Submitted December 11, 2007