Friday, October 29, 2010

Syracuse University PC Police on Patrol For Offensive Halloween Costumes

How can a movement be both silly and dictatorial? Political Correctness manages it, at least at one university:

Syracuse University campus security has asked students to report offensive Halloween costumes this year as a part of the S.U. Stop Bias program. The Department of Public Safety at Syracuse, would report offensive costumes and “file a judicial complaint” and “likely require them to remove it.”

Well what could possibly constitute an offensive enough costume to deserve a threatening judicial complaint? “DPS is looking to guard against any costumes that might be, among other things, racially, ethnically, or religiously offensive,” reads a quote from a SU broadcast journalism graduate student blog, Newshouse.

Here's a picture of the campus police, armed and vigilant against sartorial insensitivity, one of the greatest threats we face today:


David Collins said...

Are those two actual Syracuse University police? They look like KGB men straight out of central casting.

Old Rebel said...

David Collins,

Yes, this is just a joke. They're KGB.

Brock Townsend said...

I'm sure they would approve these....

Bad Joke For All Freedom Loving People

Anonymous said...

Now y'all see what I mean about Old Rebel's "sense of humor"? It's bizarre, but not outlandish enough in this crazy world to rule it out as a joke! - Dutchy

Mark Thomey said...

Well.... I guess that means I can't follow the Catholic tradition of dressing-up as a Saint and going door-to-door offering prayers and singing Gregorian Chant. After all, this holiday did derive from the Christian celebration of All Saints Day, which is on 1 November.

Old Rebel said...

Brock Townsend,

Yikes! You should've warned us!

Old Rebel said...


Thanks -- I think.

Old Rebel said...

Mark Thomey,

Honoring a saint would sent the message that other people's religion isn't as worthy as yours.

Shame on you!

Anonymous said...

Dutchy drones on:

Guess I'd better rethink going trick-or-treating as Colonel Sanders. And here I just got done growing the proper facial hair in anticipation... Going as Gen. Custer is purely out of the question - that would offend ME!

Come to think of it, just about every costume you can name oughta offend SOMEBODY.

PC Feds oughta just ban it all, period. Kids, sorry, but everybody's gotta give up some freedom for the socialist good!

Anonymous said...

Dutchy further reflects:
This trivial example actually has meaning for us at a much deeper level. Why are people so offended by the actions and words of others? Why do they seem to be offended so much today? Why do they insist on NOT being offended?

The answer in a word - Multiculturalism.

Forcing folks of diverse cultures to live intermingled breeds discontent among all. The more diverse the people, the greater the tension. The federal government insists that we do this and empowers certain ethnic groups to enforce their will. The result is that there is NO American culture where this occurs. This fits right into the feds master plan - THEY will define what we are and what we are not. THEY will dictate what is permissible and what is not. THEY will resolve the inevitable disputes. This is why they hate the South - because it does have its own established culture that they cannot easily bend and distort.

The most ridiculous of all the asinine bumper stickers is the multi-colored
"DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENTH". Diversity, by its very nature, divides and weakens. Is it not the opposite of "unity"?

There does exist a divide between peoples that must be acknowledged. The greater the divergence between language, customs, dress, values, and religion, the greater the gap. Some can be easily bridged because the gap is narrow. Others simply cannot. If you don't believe me, consider your last shopping trip to town. Did you not see people dressed very unlike you speaking a very foreign language? Did you attempt to strike up a conversation with them? Did they with you?

I rest my case.

Harold Thomas said...

I respect your opinion, and your last comment contained many sound points; but I work in an extremely diverse workplace in a state that has had a diverse population since at least 1870.
There is one word that has been missing from our political discourse that could let us retain the advantages of diversity (and I suggest that diversity is one of the wellsprings of American creativity), while allowing us to be comfortable being ourselves. That word is tolerance.
Tolerance means that we can speak freely, and accept that we will sometimes be offended when someone else speaks freely. A white person can choose to live in an all-white neighborhood, a mixed neighborhood, or invade an all-black neighborhood, but in any neighborhood he accepts personal responsibility for his decision.
In a diverse society, the law must judge a person for what he does, not for what he thinks. In other words, if I punch out a gay activist, I should be prosecuted for committing assault, but with nothing extra because the victim was homosexual ("hate crime"), because that punch would hurt a straight person or a celibate priest just as much. Courts cannot judge what is in our hearts -- only God can do that.
This is one reason I am a decentralist -- meaning that I favor very limited (or no) federal government, limited state government, and all the local government we want -- because this enables us to preserve the culture we want to live in, while respecting the same rights in others.
This is, of course, an oversimplification -- we have to promote personal, not collective, responsibility; expect immigrants to speak our language and respect our laws; etc. But it is a way diversity has been proven to work in Ohio and other places.
Oh, and it requires one other thing, which is too often lacking: mutual respect.

Anonymous said...

Tolerance and mutual respect: the greater the span between cultures forced to co-exist, the less of each must follow...

Those concepts put me in mind of stories told by my father and father-in-law growing up in St. Louis in the 1920's. Both independently told me the same basic tale.

Neighborhoods were geographically defined by ethnicity (and to some extent, still are - the Italian "Hill" is an example). There were the Italians, the Irish, the Jews, the blacks, and the Germans for starters. Fistfights among youths were commonplace on the borders. Each ethnic group had a derogatory name for each other group. The Germans were called the "squareheads". That was pretty benign compared to some of the other names.

Tolerance and mutual respect consisted of holding with your own and not encroaching on others' territory. Yes, they often worked together, but they did NOT live together.

You see, not just birds of a feather flock together. Diversity may be just fine in the marketplace, but it does not foster true community.

I respect your opinions and I fully share your principles of government, Harold Thomas. Anything I come across that you write I will read and re-read; I'm a frequent visitor to The Ohio Republic. I do understand your sentiments here, but I believe some of what you write above simply flies in the face of human nature.

- Dutchy

Harold Thomas said...


I suggest that, by carefully reading our last comments, you will find that we really are not that far apart.

My concept of decentralism also means that you don't have to live with anyone you don't want to live with.