Sigma Chi's long night

Thank you Sigma Chi for creating this mess. By now, nary a Hopkins student is unaware of the events of Oct. 28, events that have quickly spiraled into scandal. On that day, the brothers of Sigma Chi hosted a party dubbed "Halloween in the Hood," and emotions have since been running high. The incident has received significant attention in the local media and even cracked the headlines on the Yahoo and CNN Web sites. So who is at fault, and where do we go from here?

Racism or stupidity?

Whether "Halloween in the Hood" constituted an act of racism is principally in the eye of the beholder. It is probable that the Facebook.com invitation containing references to a variety of black stereotypes was intended as a joke and we don't think the now-legendary hanging pirate skeleton was meant to evoke images of lynching. However, given the context in which the effigy was performed, the symbolism took on an all-too loaded meaning of which the Sigma Chi brothers should have been cognizant. The alleged use of fake gunshot noises throughout the party and the presence of bullet hole decorations on the walls were both indicative of extreme insensitivity. However, it is not our place to judge whether Sigma Chi intended to offend.

What we can say with certainty, however, is that the decision to hold the party was a foolish one and that Justin Park and his Sigma Chi brothers should be ashamed of their monumental stupidity. Robert Turning, Greek life coordinator at Hopkins, is on record demanding that Sigma Chi cancel what he was certain would be an offensive party, and he made his position known to the fraternity. Turning also insisted that Park's distasteful Facebook invitation be removed from the site. But Park brazenly -- and apparently in opposition to the wishes of his fraternity brothers -- made a new and even more odious invitation shortly afterward.

But Park is not the only person at fault. The JHU chapter of Sigma Chi appears prepared to scapegoat him and has already expelled him with the blessing of the national organization. But the fraternity itself must be held accountable. All members were complicit in the debacle. The argument that brothers were somehow unaware of the nature of the party would strain the credulity of even the most gullible. Decorations throughout the house demonstrate unquestionably that they knew what they were doing. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that any of them believed the party would be viewed as a hilarious joke. On a modern college campus, tolerance is sine qua non. They were taking stabs at the sensibilities of students and they knew it.

Unfraternal behavior

A fraternal organization must take responsibility for all of its members, but in this instance it has failed to do so. When individuals take a fraternal oath they accept collective onus. If a fraternity fails to uphold this expectation then it is, fundamentally, little more than a needlessly exclusive club.

More importantly, however, Sigma Chi's actions are antithetical to the fraternity's raison d'etre. The Hopkins chapter of Sigma Chi was founded only a few years ago with the intention of being a fraternity like no other. It was supposed to represent a new road for fraternities at Hopkins, committed, ironically, to diversity. The quickness with which the ideals of the chapter's founders were disposed of makes the whole affair that much more shameful.

The response

Sigma Chi's reaction has done little to improve their enormously tarnished image. Several brothers, including Park, defended the fraternity's actions at a meeting of the Black Student Union on Sunday, Oct. 29. We do, however, applaud the brothers who apologized at the open forum and are pleased to learn that an official apology is forthcoming.

The University, thankfully, has responded appropriately. There have been voluminous demands for swift action against Park and Sigma Chi, but the administration has wisely ignored such calls, opting instead to perform an investigation using the procedures it has set forth. We are confident that it will take an evenhanded approach geared toward healing rifts in the student community rather than mollifying the anger of hardliners. Excessive punishment, such as forcing the fraternity to disband or expelling students from the University, will do no good for anyone involved. No one wants this matter to be closed without being addressed in a significant way, but we must also guard against overreaction.

The Black Student Union (BSU), too, should be commended for their prompt and organized response. They have a right to be upset about "Halloween in the Hood" and, on a largely apathetic campus, they have set a model for activism by effectively mobilizing their membership and establishing a unified position. They have also undertaken an exemplary publicity effort, enlisting local media and ensuring that students and the University are aware of their grievances.

That being said, we have some misgivings. BSU appears more interested in creating a media spectacle than inducing positive change at Hopkins. A vociferous response is justified, but it must be constructive. BSU is busy working on press releases and garnering media attention, which is useful for their goal of informing students and the wider community of the scourge of racism, but they have done little to promote solutions at Homewood. There have been no attempts thus far at education or fostering dialogue. At the open forum many students involved in BSU made vague demands for what amounts essentially to censorship of potentially insensitive speech. This, like any repression of speech, is dangerous and to be avoided at all costs.

Hopefully BSU will carry this momentum into other affairs. For example, no one has complained about the grotesque wall hangings in Nolan's at 33rd -- figures of black musicians complete with scraggly hair and huge red lips suggestive of images from another, less tolerant time. Perhaps BSU should channel energies in that direction as well.

Is this a Hopkins problem?

Some have complained that Hopkins is home to institutionalized racism. However, the Sigma Chi case strikes us mainly as a response typical of students uprooted from suburbia and suddenly confronted with an urban environment that they do not understand. Many Hopkins students think of Baltimore as one large untamed "ghetto" surrounding their island of higher learning. This perception must change. Baltimore has its deficiencies, that much is certain, but they are not insurmountable and they are not just someone else's problem. We can make a difference, but we choose not to. When this attitude is corrected, students will, perhaps, think twice about making light of the considerable problems we face as Baltimore residents. That sense of residency must be inculcated or we will make no progress.

It should also be noted that Sigma Chi's behavior will serve only to damage the University's already lackluster reputation among the population of our home city. Baltimore's poor blacks -- a large percentage of the city -- are wary of this predominately white institution that dominates the city in so many ways. Images of Hopkins are ubiquitous, be they minor, like advertisements on trains, or terribly overt. A recent example of the latter would be the East Baltimore Development Project, which appears promising in the long-term, but necessitated the unpopular demolition of low-income apartments in order to make way for a new Hopkins biotech building, among other things. The actions of the Hopkins student body reflect on the school and its symbol in Baltimore, and Sigma Chi has given those who would accuse the University of pervasive racism greater legitimacy.

What happens next?

This unfortunate event need not be a fiasco. It is incumbent upon the University to take reasonable steps to mitigate racial insensitivity and disrespect.

First, the University should take this opportunity to perform meaningful research on the role of race at the school. Establish a committee of administrators, students and professors to investigate race at Hopkins and make recommendations for positive change. Give them the funding they require, and then carry out those recommendations. The status quo is obviously not good enough.

Second, teach students to appreciate the surrounding community -- both for its faults and its unique qualities. It is all too easy to treat with amusement that which we do not understand, but if students were more fully aware of the difficulties the city faces and the injustices that cause them, there would be no more Halloweens in the Hood. The Africana Studies program could provide the academic infrastructure for such an educational program or a new Urban Studies discipline might be in order. Hopkins is in a perfect position to be a leader in this field, but, thus far, has made only meager attempts to understand Baltimore and urban problems generally. The University is fortunate to have several faculty who can make important contributions to this field and all students should be encouraged to take advantage of them.

Sigma Chi's party was an unfortunate occasion in the history of Hopkins, but it can, ultimately, become a force for good. The insensitivities latent on campus have been exposed. Now, we must combat them together.