twat Tweets and Other Tired Traditions
_by aimee rickman
OMG, guize. Did you see it?
Ok, I know it was easy to miss amidst all of the scandal and polar vortexing of late January, so I will explain.
Champaign-Urbana woke on the morning of Monday, January 27, 2014 to find themselves both uncomfortably cold and the topic of an embarrassing BuzzFeed article.
The article documented terse messages sent out on Twitter the night before using the hashtag #FuckPhyllis and others sent out later from a fake Twitter account named @ChanPhyllisWise. These tweets came in apparent response to UIUC Chancellor Phyllis Wise’s email to the campus announcing that classes would be held on Monday despite the weather. Some of these tweets were mean. Others went beyond this to include misogynic or racist slurs and imagery. Over the next few days, the BuzzFeed article was picked up by other news sources, including CU’s own News-Gazette, and those well outside of our cornfield tundra like The Chicago Tribune, Inside Higher Education, and The Huffington Post.
These tweets about the chancellor created quite a stir. But that’s not what I am asking if you saw.
Before going any further, I need to pause here to clarify something: The racist and misogynistic tweets directed at Wise are inexcusable. They were hostile and wrong. Those who wrote them deserve to be called out and taken to task for choosing to personalize an institutional decision, and to use images and words to personally attack a person based on their sex and race.
That said, I want to focus on an entirely different subject for the rest of this post, in part because everyone else already has.
It seems the fanfare created around Twitter news presented a prime opportunity for another enthusiastic round of youth bashing on Facebook and comment boards across the digital plains. Didn’t see it? I understand. It was easy to miss.
But this was not due to the outcry over the expressed racism and sexism. By 11am on Monday, January 27, my Facebook newsfeed blew up with status updates from friends on the topic. While a few of these posts took time to address the disturbing content of the tweets, each status filled with comments looking right past the hateful words and images tweeted to slam UIUC students for having the gall to hope for a day off school.
Ok, I know it was easy to miss amidst all of the scandal and polar vortexing of late January, so I will explain.
Champaign-Urbana woke on the morning of Monday, January 27, 2014 to find themselves both uncomfortably cold and the topic of an embarrassing BuzzFeed article.
The article documented terse messages sent out on Twitter the night before using the hashtag #FuckPhyllis and others sent out later from a fake Twitter account named @ChanPhyllisWise. These tweets came in apparent response to UIUC Chancellor Phyllis Wise’s email to the campus announcing that classes would be held on Monday despite the weather. Some of these tweets were mean. Others went beyond this to include misogynic or racist slurs and imagery. Over the next few days, the BuzzFeed article was picked up by other news sources, including CU’s own News-Gazette, and those well outside of our cornfield tundra like The Chicago Tribune, Inside Higher Education, and The Huffington Post.
These tweets about the chancellor created quite a stir. But that’s not what I am asking if you saw.
Before going any further, I need to pause here to clarify something: The racist and misogynistic tweets directed at Wise are inexcusable. They were hostile and wrong. Those who wrote them deserve to be called out and taken to task for choosing to personalize an institutional decision, and to use images and words to personally attack a person based on their sex and race.
That said, I want to focus on an entirely different subject for the rest of this post, in part because everyone else already has.
It seems the fanfare created around Twitter news presented a prime opportunity for another enthusiastic round of youth bashing on Facebook and comment boards across the digital plains. Didn’t see it? I understand. It was easy to miss.
But this was not due to the outcry over the expressed racism and sexism. By 11am on Monday, January 27, my Facebook newsfeed blew up with status updates from friends on the topic. While a few of these posts took time to address the disturbing content of the tweets, each status filled with comments looking right past the hateful words and images tweeted to slam UIUC students for having the gall to hope for a day off school.
Guess those students will really be shocked when they get a job and the company doesn't say oh it's too cold. Don't worry about coming to work today. Grow up lazy brats!
f**cked up suburban kids. U don't have to attend classes if u don't want to...its ur money u idiots!
Just because you didn't spew some racist or sexist shit doesn't make you immune from the entitlement part of the douchebag equation…
Whiney wusses
Some comments noted that students even had “the nerve” to craft an online petition at change.org entitled “Cancel U of I classes Monday 1/27/14 to protect campus community.”
News and weather reports projected a the arrival of a second “polar vortex” on Monday bringing “historic deep freeze” temperatures to the Champaign-Urbana area in what some forecasted to be a repeat of the severe winter weather of January 6 that closed down town and forced Illinois police to proclaim roadways suitable for “emergency travel only.”
The petition asked Wise, Kenneth Ballom, the Dean of Students, and Renee Romano, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, for the day off in the interest of safety.
News and weather reports projected a the arrival of a second “polar vortex” on Monday bringing “historic deep freeze” temperatures to the Champaign-Urbana area in what some forecasted to be a repeat of the severe winter weather of January 6 that closed down town and forced Illinois police to proclaim roadways suitable for “emergency travel only.”
The petition asked Wise, Kenneth Ballom, the Dean of Students, and Renee Romano, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, for the day off in the interest of safety.
Close U of I Monday 1/27/14 to protect students, faculty, and staff
The National Weather Service has issued a wind chill warning for Monday, January 27, 2014 in Champaign County, IL. Air temperatures will be below 0°F and extremely strong wind chills will lower them to -25°F to -35°F, which can cause frostbite within 10-15 minutes of exposure. Surrounding public schools have already closed their facilities, in addition to universities across the state.
Canceling classes is a responsible measure to ensure that the student body stays safe during these extreme weather conditions. Please reconsider telling students to risk their health and safety by forcing them to attend class in subzero temperatures.
This petition received 7,000 online signatures, which is more than UIUC administration received from petitions asking them to “Stop the Presence of Chief Illiniwek [and choose a] New Mascot Now!”, to “Evict Chick-Fil-A from the Illini Union!”, to “Change the content of the [Human Anatomy and Physiology] final to exclude the cumulative portion”, or to prevent the closing of the Police Training Institute, but fewer than the number of signatures asking them to “Stop Changes to the 3 in 1 Medley” played during Illinois sporting events, or to “Bring Back Chief Illiniwek to the University of Illinois.”
Online petitions have been lauded by some for lowering barriers to political involvement and, as such, for inspiring greater civic action. Others like Evgeny Morozov critique these efforts as a primary example of “slactivism” that effectively contains valid social discontent and neuters interests in political participation and social change. Either way, online petitions are a by-product of a digital era that promises heightened social involvement without even needing to physically show up.
Petitions are an important part of the political process. The right to petition government on the local and national level in the US is protected by the First Amendment. UIUC students also have to use petitions to advocate for themselves on campus in different ways. Like these petitions, online petitions organized by entities such as MoveOn, iPetitions, and even the Presidential White House through We The People are pitched as assembling social sentiment in formats recognized and respected by those in charge. For example, with a tagline: “The world’s platform for change,” Change.org operates with the stated goal of “empowering people everywhere to create the change they want to see.”
Facebook users might view UIUC students as dumb and entitled for writing an online petition asking the university to be responsive to their interests, but, if so, these students are not alone in their privileged daftness. Over 45 million people have started and signed Change.org petitions. And, in the past week alone, more than 234,000 have signed the White House petition asking the government to deport the Biebs back to the Canadian northlands from which he and his dreamy hair hail.
In total, Change.org hosts 15 petitions directed to UIUC right now, eight of which specifically name Wise, dating back to August of 2012.
Although temperatures did not fall to the projected level, January 27 was extremely cold. And school was not cancelled at Illinois. Disgruntled and nasty tweets were tweeted by Twitter accounts. A Change.org petition was written and signed by members of the campus community. These acts were covered as news. And Facebook adults freaked out about the gall of these children.
Did you see it? Again, it was easy to miss. Especially with all of the virtual back-slapping over shared memories of the good old days when we were all young and cold hardy and far better than all of the kids today. We never wrote a petition asking school to close, alum told one another. Heck, we never even thought about school closing!
Online petitions have been lauded by some for lowering barriers to political involvement and, as such, for inspiring greater civic action. Others like Evgeny Morozov critique these efforts as a primary example of “slactivism” that effectively contains valid social discontent and neuters interests in political participation and social change. Either way, online petitions are a by-product of a digital era that promises heightened social involvement without even needing to physically show up.
Petitions are an important part of the political process. The right to petition government on the local and national level in the US is protected by the First Amendment. UIUC students also have to use petitions to advocate for themselves on campus in different ways. Like these petitions, online petitions organized by entities such as MoveOn, iPetitions, and even the Presidential White House through We The People are pitched as assembling social sentiment in formats recognized and respected by those in charge. For example, with a tagline: “The world’s platform for change,” Change.org operates with the stated goal of “empowering people everywhere to create the change they want to see.”
Facebook users might view UIUC students as dumb and entitled for writing an online petition asking the university to be responsive to their interests, but, if so, these students are not alone in their privileged daftness. Over 45 million people have started and signed Change.org petitions. And, in the past week alone, more than 234,000 have signed the White House petition asking the government to deport the Biebs back to the Canadian northlands from which he and his dreamy hair hail.
In total, Change.org hosts 15 petitions directed to UIUC right now, eight of which specifically name Wise, dating back to August of 2012.
Although temperatures did not fall to the projected level, January 27 was extremely cold. And school was not cancelled at Illinois. Disgruntled and nasty tweets were tweeted by Twitter accounts. A Change.org petition was written and signed by members of the campus community. These acts were covered as news. And Facebook adults freaked out about the gall of these children.
Did you see it? Again, it was easy to miss. Especially with all of the virtual back-slapping over shared memories of the good old days when we were all young and cold hardy and far better than all of the kids today. We never wrote a petition asking school to close, alum told one another. Heck, we never even thought about school closing!
we were proud that U of I NEVER cancels class . . . Honestly aren't these people supposedly adults?
fantasies of oppression.
The pile-on continued throughout the week as more people read the Facebook posts and the articles and – importantly – the comments to these articles and posts. We were the ones who had it rough, Facebook elders wrote on friends’ Facebook comment threads. We go to work everyday without asking it to close, they reminded one another. That’s what adults do. We lived through the cold and the ice and the storms that cut out power and caused falls that broke bones, and we made it through all of this dressed in layers to make it to class. These wimp kids don’t KNOW cold. They don’t know effort. They don’t know work.
How many of us had to go to work today? I did! Why are they complaining? It's called being an adult. Grow up! Do they think when they get a real job their work is going to call off because it is cold? NO...my work didn't even close when all the roads were closed. Deal with it, Mommy and Daddy can't take care of you forever! Lol
The grand take-away: These students don’t deserve a day off. They don’t deserve the education they are lucky to be getting. They don’t anything, really. They are lazy, entitled, ungrateful, clueless pansies, quite unlike hard-working us (and former us). Kids today are the worst!
What's really irritating is that most of those brats wouldn't go to class anyway!
Histories can be quite generous toward those who get to do the writing. Apparently, the personal retrospectives of many adults on Facebook involve memories of being super-hardy eager beavers who never hoped to be given a snow day – even now. And it turns out that thinking on their own pasts on Facebook makes some of these people extra insulting toward current college students.
Yeah, if it was unofficial, they all would've been out there in shorts, t's and flip flops with a cold one in each hand acting like the idiots they truly are... Buck up people! Lol
Between occasional early posts of “this is horrible” and “how disgusting,” Facebook played host to an explosion of conversations affirming animosity toward students. In them, there was very little discussion of the hateful tweeters, of their hostile messages, or even of a student body that feels free to gather to disparage an outsider based on their social identity. Instead, the commenters in these Facebook posts largely looked past these areas to communally disparage a group of outsiders based on their social identities, discussing students in general as clueless non-adults and, thus, as lesser and as less deserving of respect.
Sometimes I wonder how they even made it into the university when they can't even cross the street properly.
Ha ha. Making jokes about groups of people who are not us is so funny!
As a fan of youth and a scholar of social media's involvement in adolescent marginality, I was struck by what I saw repeatedly on my Facebook news feed. I decided to turn to the experts for some answers. I checked in with esteemed meteorologist Ed Kieser on the matter to ask if students were, indeed, way off-base in their concern over Monday’s weather. Ed sent me a historical weather chart, and he let me know that the day was not record breaking, but it was cold. In fact, he said that 2014 has been the coldest January in two decades “Bottom line,” he said, “we've had more mild winters than not in the last 20 years, so the weather we're now experiencing seems extreme to those that can't remember back 20 years or more."
That known, it seems there might have been some reason for 17 to 21 year old college students to be concerned about the safety of the weather on January 27. But Facebook wasn’t having any of it.
Later that week, statements were released by the University President and by the Chancellor, herself. Facebook adults took these as new opportunities to host exchanges patting each other on the back for being so very different than “Me” Generation undergrads at Illinois. I watched the glory-day stories spin around insults widely aimed at college co-eds, and I occasionally jumped into posts to provide some geeky historical weather context, or to ask what is gained by calling students names. Each time, I was told I was overreacting. I was told the disparaging comments being made were true sometimes. I was told that it was cold when they were young, and people all made it to school without complaining. Twice, posters informed me that comments made specifically mentioning “all students” actually is code for “some students.” I was told by a poster that I must have missed the "Lol" posted at the end of their comment, which, after some back-and-forth, was clarified as not signifying a joke, but as just a laugh (as in: "ha ha. Calling students idiots is so funny!"). And I was informed by a friend of a Facebook friend, a staffer at Illinois, that the insults must have been hitting close to home if I had a problem with what was being said about students.
As a fan of youth and a scholar of social media's involvement in adolescent marginality, I was struck by what I saw repeatedly on my Facebook news feed. I decided to turn to the experts for some answers. I checked in with esteemed meteorologist Ed Kieser on the matter to ask if students were, indeed, way off-base in their concern over Monday’s weather. Ed sent me a historical weather chart, and he let me know that the day was not record breaking, but it was cold. In fact, he said that 2014 has been the coldest January in two decades “Bottom line,” he said, “we've had more mild winters than not in the last 20 years, so the weather we're now experiencing seems extreme to those that can't remember back 20 years or more."
That known, it seems there might have been some reason for 17 to 21 year old college students to be concerned about the safety of the weather on January 27. But Facebook wasn’t having any of it.
Later that week, statements were released by the University President and by the Chancellor, herself. Facebook adults took these as new opportunities to host exchanges patting each other on the back for being so very different than “Me” Generation undergrads at Illinois. I watched the glory-day stories spin around insults widely aimed at college co-eds, and I occasionally jumped into posts to provide some geeky historical weather context, or to ask what is gained by calling students names. Each time, I was told I was overreacting. I was told the disparaging comments being made were true sometimes. I was told that it was cold when they were young, and people all made it to school without complaining. Twice, posters informed me that comments made specifically mentioning “all students” actually is code for “some students.” I was told by a poster that I must have missed the "Lol" posted at the end of their comment, which, after some back-and-forth, was clarified as not signifying a joke, but as just a laugh (as in: "ha ha. Calling students idiots is so funny!"). And I was informed by a friend of a Facebook friend, a staffer at Illinois, that the insults must have been hitting close to home if I had a problem with what was being said about students.
maybe you are a student, I don't know, but if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, I wasn't talking about you.
Then, she told me to breathe. Because, as an assumed student, I was, of course, deemed irrational, out of control, idiotic, and already in enough danger due to my inability to cross the street.
Upon breathing, two things became very clear:
1. The shared belief that social problems must be somehow personal to be valid is both extremely familiar in this town and extremely messed up, and
2. Something very strange is underway when we choose to look away from important, but complicated, issues with collective fervor to instead focus upon “the entitled little shits that go to U of I.”
Upon breathing, two things became very clear:
1. The shared belief that social problems must be somehow personal to be valid is both extremely familiar in this town and extremely messed up, and
2. Something very strange is underway when we choose to look away from important, but complicated, issues with collective fervor to instead focus upon “the entitled little shits that go to U of I.”
Youth-blaming is pervasive in the US.
We are well primed to associate young people with laziness, irrationality, and overblown senses of entitlement. These messages are pitched by professionals. For example, numerous parenting websites share the tired words of James Dobson of the religious Focus On the Family, advising help-seeking mothers and fathers to see their teenagers as (inaccurately) chemically “haywire for a few years” in ways that he (again inaccurately and misogynistcally) compares to PMS. In the media, we are shown repeated images of young people as flighty, irresponsible, narcissistic, and made of other unsavory qualities. We are told to believe in generational differences that make younger people alien and unknowable to those who are older. And we are quick to corroborate one another’s stories bemoaning the fall from grace and goodness witnessed in “kids today.” Like the overrepresentation of white males presented as “authorities” in televised news in this country, we commonly don’t even notice that anything is odd about versions of reality saying that young people are unworthy, unprepared, and idiotic. Kids mess things up. Making sense of things by saying that young people are doing something wrong feels right. It’s what we’re encouraged to think. It’s what we do think in our neoliberal, people-blaming society.
Bitching about kids is easy. But it’s not helpful. In fact, it’s often less than helpful. It’s a scapegoat, a bamboozle, a sleight of hand. It’s smoke and mirrors that enables familiar narratives of youth fallibility to take our collective attention away from less tangible sources of our struggles, restoring our feelings of control, and uniting us in action. We have pin-pointed and addressed the problem, we could say. It’s those damn kids messing everything up again.
Case in point: In CU’s own Twittergate, making sense of this unfortunate situation by blaming young people efficiently took attention away from three other areas of concern:
1. The hostile tweets themselves.
Again, entirely inexcusable. But were they being talked about? No.
2. The fact that identities are being constructed from social media composites and from online “journalism.”
A huge topic for a later article, but, basically this:
Twitter is not formally a game, but, in some ways, it is a game. You win Twitter by having your topic trend, and by writing something so unique that it gets retweeted. The goal is getting attention, going viral, doing what is needed to be popular.
As profit-driven social media that incentivizes (unverified) users to use their 140 characters to shock, snark, or otherwise do what is needed to gain maximum attention, we might be wise to be wary about Twitter’s ability to accurately tell us about others’ identities, and to portray realities. And, as a profit-driven news sources that benefit from the eyes and clicks it gains by running scandals, we should question the intentions of online “journalism” that uses Twitter as primary source material, as well as other forms of “alarming,” voyeuristic click-bait.
We are well primed to associate young people with laziness, irrationality, and overblown senses of entitlement. These messages are pitched by professionals. For example, numerous parenting websites share the tired words of James Dobson of the religious Focus On the Family, advising help-seeking mothers and fathers to see their teenagers as (inaccurately) chemically “haywire for a few years” in ways that he (again inaccurately and misogynistcally) compares to PMS. In the media, we are shown repeated images of young people as flighty, irresponsible, narcissistic, and made of other unsavory qualities. We are told to believe in generational differences that make younger people alien and unknowable to those who are older. And we are quick to corroborate one another’s stories bemoaning the fall from grace and goodness witnessed in “kids today.” Like the overrepresentation of white males presented as “authorities” in televised news in this country, we commonly don’t even notice that anything is odd about versions of reality saying that young people are unworthy, unprepared, and idiotic. Kids mess things up. Making sense of things by saying that young people are doing something wrong feels right. It’s what we’re encouraged to think. It’s what we do think in our neoliberal, people-blaming society.
Bitching about kids is easy. But it’s not helpful. In fact, it’s often less than helpful. It’s a scapegoat, a bamboozle, a sleight of hand. It’s smoke and mirrors that enables familiar narratives of youth fallibility to take our collective attention away from less tangible sources of our struggles, restoring our feelings of control, and uniting us in action. We have pin-pointed and addressed the problem, we could say. It’s those damn kids messing everything up again.
Case in point: In CU’s own Twittergate, making sense of this unfortunate situation by blaming young people efficiently took attention away from three other areas of concern:
1. The hostile tweets themselves.
Again, entirely inexcusable. But were they being talked about? No.
2. The fact that identities are being constructed from social media composites and from online “journalism.”
A huge topic for a later article, but, basically this:
Twitter is not formally a game, but, in some ways, it is a game. You win Twitter by having your topic trend, and by writing something so unique that it gets retweeted. The goal is getting attention, going viral, doing what is needed to be popular.
As profit-driven social media that incentivizes (unverified) users to use their 140 characters to shock, snark, or otherwise do what is needed to gain maximum attention, we might be wise to be wary about Twitter’s ability to accurately tell us about others’ identities, and to portray realities. And, as a profit-driven news sources that benefit from the eyes and clicks it gains by running scandals, we should question the intentions of online “journalism” that uses Twitter as primary source material, as well as other forms of “alarming,” voyeuristic click-bait.
3. Structural racism, sexism, and classism
While the Internet was rolled out with the promise of bringing power to the powerless, and removing barriers to social involvement faced by corporeal beings stopped by their burdensome social identities, this is not what happens. Scholars such as Lisa Nakamura have thrown down on utopian theories of the Internet, pointing out, among other things, that the social spaces of the Internet encourage social assimilation into assumed whiteness, maleness, and heterosexuality, and regularly treat those who fall outside of these bounds like crap. Sexism and racism are rampant on social media.
Some of the offending tweets referenced the Chancellor through hashtags like #Cunt and #Whore. She is hardly alone. These are both labels used widely to discredit female in the social internet. For example, Danielle N. Lee, an African American female biologist behind the Urban Scientist blog, was called an “urban whore” by the pseudonymed editor of the Biology Online blog, who was scorned by Lee’s polite rejection of invitation she received to write for free. And Facebook refused to address violence and hate speech directed against women on its site until a public campaign (that also included a few online petitions) forced it to change its policies just last year. There are about a million, kajillion other examples of social media hostility directed toward females and people of color.
Social media is a reflection of society, and, perhaps this is a news flash to many, but look around! Hidden behind rhetoric of personal responsibility and bootstrapping, sexism and racism are also rampant in this society of ours. This is not said to dismiss nasty things that happen online, but to provide an important perspective on the context and infrastructure from which online aggression springs.
Social media anonymity makes it easier to say things that you might not want to be being held accountable for, but online hate doesn’t just happen. Briefly, online aggression has roots in offline power imbalances that allow the privileged in our society to benefit from the marginalization, demeaning, defaming, misrepresentation, powerlessness, and threatening of those less privileged.
These things spill over into online spaces, yes.
For some, it might take the very-public personal attacking of an Asian American female university administrator to see that power imbalance exists in our supposedly all-equal society. But, hey! Want to see very-public racism? Disconnect from the screen and take a walk on campus or around town to take in all of the Chief Illinwek gear on proud parade. The “Chief” was officially “retired” from the university in 2007. Still, UIUC has repeatedly chosen alumni contributions over any willingness to address how the decision to have someone dress up as a Native American to perform a made-up dance during sporting event half-times ties into the issue of racial appropriation, or to discuss how the university’s mascot provides a lovely example of how good intentions can not override racist denigration of a people and of a culture that is not your own.
Want to see very-public sexism (and racism)? Again, no Internet needed! For starters, why not take a walk down the hallowed halls of the Illini Union’s first floor east wing and look at the portraits of past Illinois administrators hanging on the wall. Also, think back to this time two years ago and remember the bullying manner in which Chancellor Wise was treated by then-President Michael Hogan when she decided to listen to faculty concerns expressed over some of Hogan’s proposed enrollment and admissions changes. For this, Hogan attempted to discredit Wise, who had been at Illinois for only a year. Wise, he proclaimed, demonstrated a “lack of leadership” in choosing to not see that his goals “are her goals.”
(note: A petition was crafted and sent off to express disproval of this situation, also. This time by faculty.)
With these examples in mind, it might be easier to see that the racial and misogynistic hostility directed at Wise is sourced in students, but it also extends well beyond them. And it extends well beyond Wise, personally.
While the university avoids accepting its role in hosting institutional racism behind efforts branded with “Diversity” and “Inclusivity,” who has to do the work to try to exist within (let alone to confront) a campus rife with white privilege that continues to allow its tradition to be defined by racial appropriation? While it launches its new campaign for “#OneCampus,” who has to rupture the guise of unity and of civility to point out that, on the U of I campus, no, in fact, we are not all give the same power and respect in our jobs? No, we are not all treated the same. No. We are not all equally able to feel safe and welcome, and to just be a student or worker who might be allowed (if they even wanted to) to blends into a shared “one campus” experience.
While the Internet was rolled out with the promise of bringing power to the powerless, and removing barriers to social involvement faced by corporeal beings stopped by their burdensome social identities, this is not what happens. Scholars such as Lisa Nakamura have thrown down on utopian theories of the Internet, pointing out, among other things, that the social spaces of the Internet encourage social assimilation into assumed whiteness, maleness, and heterosexuality, and regularly treat those who fall outside of these bounds like crap. Sexism and racism are rampant on social media.
Some of the offending tweets referenced the Chancellor through hashtags like #Cunt and #Whore. She is hardly alone. These are both labels used widely to discredit female in the social internet. For example, Danielle N. Lee, an African American female biologist behind the Urban Scientist blog, was called an “urban whore” by the pseudonymed editor of the Biology Online blog, who was scorned by Lee’s polite rejection of invitation she received to write for free. And Facebook refused to address violence and hate speech directed against women on its site until a public campaign (that also included a few online petitions) forced it to change its policies just last year. There are about a million, kajillion other examples of social media hostility directed toward females and people of color.
Social media is a reflection of society, and, perhaps this is a news flash to many, but look around! Hidden behind rhetoric of personal responsibility and bootstrapping, sexism and racism are also rampant in this society of ours. This is not said to dismiss nasty things that happen online, but to provide an important perspective on the context and infrastructure from which online aggression springs.
Social media anonymity makes it easier to say things that you might not want to be being held accountable for, but online hate doesn’t just happen. Briefly, online aggression has roots in offline power imbalances that allow the privileged in our society to benefit from the marginalization, demeaning, defaming, misrepresentation, powerlessness, and threatening of those less privileged.
These things spill over into online spaces, yes.
For some, it might take the very-public personal attacking of an Asian American female university administrator to see that power imbalance exists in our supposedly all-equal society. But, hey! Want to see very-public racism? Disconnect from the screen and take a walk on campus or around town to take in all of the Chief Illinwek gear on proud parade. The “Chief” was officially “retired” from the university in 2007. Still, UIUC has repeatedly chosen alumni contributions over any willingness to address how the decision to have someone dress up as a Native American to perform a made-up dance during sporting event half-times ties into the issue of racial appropriation, or to discuss how the university’s mascot provides a lovely example of how good intentions can not override racist denigration of a people and of a culture that is not your own.
Want to see very-public sexism (and racism)? Again, no Internet needed! For starters, why not take a walk down the hallowed halls of the Illini Union’s first floor east wing and look at the portraits of past Illinois administrators hanging on the wall. Also, think back to this time two years ago and remember the bullying manner in which Chancellor Wise was treated by then-President Michael Hogan when she decided to listen to faculty concerns expressed over some of Hogan’s proposed enrollment and admissions changes. For this, Hogan attempted to discredit Wise, who had been at Illinois for only a year. Wise, he proclaimed, demonstrated a “lack of leadership” in choosing to not see that his goals “are her goals.”
(note: A petition was crafted and sent off to express disproval of this situation, also. This time by faculty.)
With these examples in mind, it might be easier to see that the racial and misogynistic hostility directed at Wise is sourced in students, but it also extends well beyond them. And it extends well beyond Wise, personally.
While the university avoids accepting its role in hosting institutional racism behind efforts branded with “Diversity” and “Inclusivity,” who has to do the work to try to exist within (let alone to confront) a campus rife with white privilege that continues to allow its tradition to be defined by racial appropriation? While it launches its new campaign for “#OneCampus,” who has to rupture the guise of unity and of civility to point out that, on the U of I campus, no, in fact, we are not all give the same power and respect in our jobs? No, we are not all treated the same. No. We are not all equally able to feel safe and welcome, and to just be a student or worker who might be allowed (if they even wanted to) to blends into a shared “one campus” experience.
So, a few questions:
Who is forced to stand up to oppression and to call out power imbalances in such a climate of assimilation? Answer: Those who are being oppressed. The STOP Coalition. The Progressive Resource/Action Cooperative. The Native American House. Native American students. Females. People of color. Queer people. Transgendered community members. They are the ones unfairly tasked to do the (pro bono!) work needed to teach people to see their privilege and to learn how to not oppress when power imbalances are condoned in the interest of unity.
And while strides have been made, how does this fare for these members of our community? Um, typically not great.
Who is forced to stand up to oppression and to call out power imbalances in such a climate of assimilation? Answer: Those who are being oppressed. The STOP Coalition. The Progressive Resource/Action Cooperative. The Native American House. Native American students. Females. People of color. Queer people. Transgendered community members. They are the ones unfairly tasked to do the (pro bono!) work needed to teach people to see their privilege and to learn how to not oppress when power imbalances are condoned in the interest of unity.
And while strides have been made, how does this fare for these members of our community? Um, typically not great.
Years ago, as a graduate student at Illinois, I did some research on anti-racist students’ experiences on Daily Illini comment boards. “I didn’t come here ready to fight,” said one self-defined African American female undergraduate turned anti-racist activist. “I came here to be an engineering student. I didn’t plan on having to fight to do it.” Around the same time, I recall a Caucasian classmate telling me that she hoped there could be more racial harmony on campus, but wished it didn't have to make people feel so uncomfortable. Again, no. Despite the rhetoric, we are not all equally valued. Illinois is not “one campus.” Advertising campaigns can ring out catchy slogans, but it will take a lot of work to get to a place where "one campus" does not mean "shut up and blend into the hegemonic mainstream." And it will not always be easy work, primarily because people in charge don't like to give up their right to be regularly treated better than others, let alone realize that their social identities afford them privileges that others do not have. Discussions and efforts are needed that make people feel uncomfortable because, as it stands, some of us are allowed to feel comfortable when others do not. And those who are not comfortable are asked to keep quiet for the sake of inclusivity and unity.
Within such an environment, it is unfortunate that a female chancellor of color might get caught in the fray. But what else should be expected on a campus unwilling to admit its part in creating and maintaining a hostile climate? It is unfortunate that so many students, staff, and faculty of color at Illinois are subject to this type of unwelcoming treatment regularly, and that their struggles gain no media attention or fanfare. It is unfortunate that females are regularly overlooked and undervalued by superiors in the work they do, and that this does not make headlines. It is unfortunate that, at Illinois, “as a matter of policy, the campus is never closed,” as this codifies that poorer workers filling lower-rank positions (representing disproportional amounts of females and people of color on campus) must risk their safety to make it to campus to avoid using holiday time when the town is closed in severe weather, but when they must still physically report to work. Some of these staff work outside. Some have no cars, and rely on buses to get to work -- buses known to stop running during inclement weather in the interest of safety. While some higher-up staff can elect to work from home on bad-weather days to avoid taking a personal day, many others who have less power are not giving this option. They need to either come in or get docked. Intermingled with public transportation, child care, and personal safety issues, it is not hard to see that the policy, itself, is racist, classist, and sexist. It is unfortunate that this fails to even raise eyebrows, or to provoke wonder over why the labels of "selfish" and "entitled" might be so generously doled out to students rather than to the institutions that host them. Who is the real "Me" Generation here?
None of this is considered newsworthy, though. It will not be picked up by BuzzFeed anytime soon to provoke a flood of Facebook posts. Without public pressure, these things will never spur administration to host a campus conversation to “move beyond” hate. They are accepted as normal as we choose to explain away the moments when our beloved campus is caught failing to perform “Inclusive Illinois” and “One Campus” solely by calling out the failings of college students. And this is disgusting.
How we think of young people matters. It shapes how we treat them directly in practice and indirectly through the policies, laws, and efforts we are willing to support. It impacts what we feel they are worthy of. When we see young people as dumb and lazy, we hold understandings that make it easy to brush off school defunding, cuts to family social services, and policies that profile, criminalize, and render deviant youth -- particularly youth of color. When we see college students as entitled, we care less when we hear they are less privileged than we are (and were), for example, in attempting to find their way in an economy that boasts the highest percentage of unemployed Americans aged 16 to 24 year olds ever recorded, and soaring college tuition rates inconceivable even 10 years ago. They are pampered, we think. They could use toughening up. They deserve it.
By blaming young people, we are distracted from the fact that University of Illinois’ practices impact far more than the easily spotlighted "entitled" and "whiny" students on campus.
Making sense of capitalistic systems that benefit from racism, sexism, and classism is hard. Recognizing privilege in a neoliberal society hell-bent on denying structure and telling people they are to blame for their failings is hard. Critiquing institutions is hard. What’s easy? Finding faults in kids. But youth blaming will not solve our problems. It may lead to rousing walks down memory lane with old friends that leave everyone feeling swell about themselves. But, along the way, it divides us while diverting our attention away from power imbalances we regularly condone that could sure use our outrage and collective disparaging -- ideally in spaces outside of Facebook.
Do you see it now?
Within such an environment, it is unfortunate that a female chancellor of color might get caught in the fray. But what else should be expected on a campus unwilling to admit its part in creating and maintaining a hostile climate? It is unfortunate that so many students, staff, and faculty of color at Illinois are subject to this type of unwelcoming treatment regularly, and that their struggles gain no media attention or fanfare. It is unfortunate that females are regularly overlooked and undervalued by superiors in the work they do, and that this does not make headlines. It is unfortunate that, at Illinois, “as a matter of policy, the campus is never closed,” as this codifies that poorer workers filling lower-rank positions (representing disproportional amounts of females and people of color on campus) must risk their safety to make it to campus to avoid using holiday time when the town is closed in severe weather, but when they must still physically report to work. Some of these staff work outside. Some have no cars, and rely on buses to get to work -- buses known to stop running during inclement weather in the interest of safety. While some higher-up staff can elect to work from home on bad-weather days to avoid taking a personal day, many others who have less power are not giving this option. They need to either come in or get docked. Intermingled with public transportation, child care, and personal safety issues, it is not hard to see that the policy, itself, is racist, classist, and sexist. It is unfortunate that this fails to even raise eyebrows, or to provoke wonder over why the labels of "selfish" and "entitled" might be so generously doled out to students rather than to the institutions that host them. Who is the real "Me" Generation here?
None of this is considered newsworthy, though. It will not be picked up by BuzzFeed anytime soon to provoke a flood of Facebook posts. Without public pressure, these things will never spur administration to host a campus conversation to “move beyond” hate. They are accepted as normal as we choose to explain away the moments when our beloved campus is caught failing to perform “Inclusive Illinois” and “One Campus” solely by calling out the failings of college students. And this is disgusting.
How we think of young people matters. It shapes how we treat them directly in practice and indirectly through the policies, laws, and efforts we are willing to support. It impacts what we feel they are worthy of. When we see young people as dumb and lazy, we hold understandings that make it easy to brush off school defunding, cuts to family social services, and policies that profile, criminalize, and render deviant youth -- particularly youth of color. When we see college students as entitled, we care less when we hear they are less privileged than we are (and were), for example, in attempting to find their way in an economy that boasts the highest percentage of unemployed Americans aged 16 to 24 year olds ever recorded, and soaring college tuition rates inconceivable even 10 years ago. They are pampered, we think. They could use toughening up. They deserve it.
By blaming young people, we are distracted from the fact that University of Illinois’ practices impact far more than the easily spotlighted "entitled" and "whiny" students on campus.
Making sense of capitalistic systems that benefit from racism, sexism, and classism is hard. Recognizing privilege in a neoliberal society hell-bent on denying structure and telling people they are to blame for their failings is hard. Critiquing institutions is hard. What’s easy? Finding faults in kids. But youth blaming will not solve our problems. It may lead to rousing walks down memory lane with old friends that leave everyone feeling swell about themselves. But, along the way, it divides us while diverting our attention away from power imbalances we regularly condone that could sure use our outrage and collective disparaging -- ideally in spaces outside of Facebook.
Do you see it now?
Update (2/3): Due to another round of nasty weather on the way, the #OneCampus conversation has been rescheduled to Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. in the Krannert Center for Performing Art's Great Hall in Urbana. Winter wins again and always.