Last weekend, students threw a party which employed certain Catholic stereotypes and traditions as the party’s theme. The party organizers were clearly aware of the potentially offensive nature of their endeavor and they took some steps to reduce or eliminate the possibility of causing discomfort. They asked that people “think wisely” about the costumes they wore to the party, they articulated a desire to make the party be an event where people of all faiths felt comfortable, and they wanted guests to know that they were not trying to stigmatize one particular faith tradition.
The problem is, of course, stigmatizing one particular faith tradition is exactly what they were doing. It is not surprising that despite their articulated desires, people were offended. Of course they were! Some Catholics were offended, as were others who support the idea that whether or not you are a person of faith, people who are ought not be marginalized for this facet of their identity.
What’s more, the “disclaimers” which appeared in the party’s invitation puts the onus on the potentially offended to basically “get over it”. The disclaimers reveal that the party organizers recognized the potentially offensive nature of their endeavor, but by saying “with this party we are not trying to stigmatize or make fun of any religious beliefs” they believed that they were somehow off the hook. It is as if any discomfort individuals might feel is now a problem with those individuals, not the party. Even after being in conversation with some of the party organizers, I still don’t understand how such disclaimers could be made while so clearly trivializing the traditions of one particular faith. Such statements ring hollow and are arguably more disturbing that simply owning the offensive nature of the activity. Nothing is protected from criticism on this campus, nor should it be. People have a right, if they so choose, to criticize, or to poke fun at anything : including religion. And while I’d like to think that living in this community in a responsible way would mean that people would not throw a party which marginalizes a particular group, the bottom line is: offensive parties can be thrown. But folks should know what they are doing and not pretend otherwise.
Fundamentally, I think (I want to think) that the discomfort caused to several people on this campus by the party was a result of ignorance and not malice. One’s motivations, however, do not change the end results. And because some Catholics might have attended the party and enjoyed themselves is, of course, irrelevant. Other folks were offended and it isn’t surprising and nothing can change that at this point. I’m disappointed that some students at Whitman would decide to make fun of Catholic practices. I’m baffled, however, that those students would think that they could do so without making some Catholics (and those who support all religious expression at Whitman) “uncomfortable”.
Sincerely,
Adam Kirtley
Coordinator of Religious and Spiritual Life
Erin • May 9, 2011 at 11:10 pm
We never said we didn’t offend people. I’ve extended apologies through Mr. Kirtley to those who approached him.
My problem was solely with the way in which we were confronted about it.
I guess my points were not trying to justify our actions, merely frustrated reactions attempting to question the administration’s manner for dealing with issues like this. Sorry I voiced them in public.
Ian G. • May 5, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Rather than trying to justify previous actions, I see the best course of action as simply owning up to any offense caused, regardless of intention. This is not to say that those involved with the party shouldn’t be able to respond or voice their side – on the contrary – but rather that if any additional words are to be said, they should be chosen very carefully. Though surely well intentioned, the response to Mr. Kirtley’s letter isn’t helping show the party planners in a positive light.
Suggesting that those offended are using this party as a scapegoat of sorts once again attempts to shift the blame onto them for their reaction. Introducing an “intellectual†v. “gut†reaction to the party adds another element to this shift, that those offended are not only somehow in the wrong, but also non-“intellectual.â€
Furthermore, regardless of my own opinion re: the “party as social experiment†idea, it only further attempts to shift blame onto those offended. You suggest that the party is a “look at what happens when religion is put into the wrong hands.†Which side are you implying is using it corruptly or incorrectly (as exemplified by your literary allusion). It’s either those throwing the party or those offended. Are you suggesting that those offended have somehow hijacked religion on the Whitman campus? Again, this shifts blame to those offended.
I don’t think that anyone would argue that the Greek organizations are held under less scrutiny than others (just look at recent campus developments with TKE). While I see the point being made re: Ball & Chain, there is still a great deal of difference between targeting marriage (a practice of many, regardless of religion or society) and targeting a specific religious group.
Ultimately, any further attempts to justify or explain your perceived “intentions†behind this party only strengthen Mr. Kirtley’s arguments and observations.
Simply own up to it – the party was (very obviously) potentially offensive, and it did offend members of the community. That’s that. Regardless of your intentions, you’re not helping your case by re-stating them here and not thinking your justification through.
Erin • May 5, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Of course there was never any malice intended. Our invite attempted to create a space for criticism, and it obviously was misinterpreted as hostile in some manner.
There is a clear difference between intellectual reactions and (for lack of a better term) “gut-check” reactions. It seems as if those most upset merely reached a breaking point, and used this as an outlet to express frustration. Everyone knows there are misconceptions here about religion, and the primarily secular nature of the Whitman community preaches diversity without really accepting or understanding it.
Much like some frat parties, ours was advertised among a select group of Whitties. Fraternities annual hold parties such as the “Ball and Chain,” where a student dressed as a fake minister performs marriages, for the purpose that the participants can then be “divorced” later in the night. They are then free to marry and divorce other partygoers. Isn’t this offensive to those who might find marriage sacred? Is our house subject to different critiques than Greek organizations?
As one of the party organizers, I apologize to those who found our event or its invitation crude. As a person of Catholic descent, I feel more connected to that culture than other organized religions, which is the reason I agreed to my housemate’s proposal to host this as his birthday party. The invitation may have had some issues, but the event was a light-hearted satire of one of the oldest and richest cultures in history.
We never claimed to be real interpreters of any sort of scripture, and there were no biblical references of any kind involved. We held a party that was more like an interactive look at what happens when religion is put into the wrong hands. The literary example that jumped to my mind is Chaucer’s Pardoner in The Canterbury Tales. He is a man who – like so many in the days when Christian gospel was solely written in Latin – travels through England selling pardons and trinkets to those who cannot read the scriptures. He is a man quick to judge others, preaching piously in a very convincing manner. But there is one problem, and that is that he is an unabashed sinner (and declares himself to be currently drunk from the very prologue to his tale).
Once again, these are all personal opinions, not meant to be expressions of what anyone in my house thinks.