Controversy plagued ASU’s victory over Stanford on Saturday night after the Black African Coalition requested that students abstain from using black paint to express their school spirit. The ASU Athletic Department quickly followed suit, urging students to forgo any type of facial paint at the pivotal game. The said “controversy” should not be considered one, as it was a simple reasonable appeal by the coalition to promote inclusiveness and acceptance at ASU.
ASU has seen increased racial tension in recent years due to a lack of sensitivity toward the black community on campus. After the now notorious “MLK Black Party” held by Tau Kappa Epsilon last January gained a national audience, the Black African Coalition and other African-American leaders in the community have the duty to inform the public of the implications of their black stereotypes.
The members of the fraternity surely do not represent the Sun Devil population as a whole; however, they did reveal a generational trend of stereotyping African-Americans as thugs and gangsters. The generalization is reminiscent of the age of blackface, which also relied heavily on negative interpretations of the African-American community.
Actors in blackface plays perpetrated the worst aspects of mankind and attempted to further ingrain the perception of African-Americans’ incompetencies. During the contentious period preceding the Civil War, blackface attempted to undermine the abolitionist movement and dehumanize black slaves. Needless to say, the history of blackface is bleak and has no place in modern society, even if it is subtle and unintentional.
ASU students at the UCLA game who donned black paint certainly did not intend any harm to the African American community when they painted themselves. But once their actions were addressed as possibly offensive, any further conversation should have ceased.
As a zero-tolerance environment, it is in the University’s best interest to ban insensitive symbolism. The intent was to spread school spirit, but the repulsive reaction to the proposed ban makes a mockery of an already racially vulnerable ASU. Before you discredit the request of the Black African Coalition, consider the implications it has on ASU at a national level. Anderson Cooper, following the MLK Black Party, berated members of our Sun Devil community. Thus, contesting over the use of face paint makes ASU look foolish, when banning it is an easy solution to evade agitation.
Indeed, we live an age that may be considered overly politically correct. While many find this a negative characteristic of society, I believe that it encourages inclusiveness. A ban on face paint is a subtle step towards a more accepting and understanding environment for all students.
Before the aforementioned request by the Black African Coalition, I agree it was a non-issue. However, now that a group of individuals who were personally offended by the actions voiced their valid perspective and pointed out a questionable practice, further conversation should now become obsolete.
Thankfully, the Black African Coalition is introducing a bill in ASU's student government to prevent insensitivity like this from occurring. Although many see the face paint as merely a sign of school spirit, the negative symbolism associated with the blackface far outreaches the scope of the stands of Sun Devil Stadium. Blackface has a damning history; our community should outwardly reject the antagonistic symbol and openly promote an understanding for every group, regardless of race.
Reach the columnist at jemeyer3@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @JordanElizaM
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
