UCLA, Alexis Jeffery, gymnasts calling out athletic director

[irichluck21]

Don’t suggest that any “marginalized community” is monolithic.

I am not by any means.

However, it is currently acceptable by a majority because of its frequent use.

I am glad there are conversations happening and advocating for change.

I don’t like the word, have never used it, and have found it offensive when it is used and directed at me.

 

[Doug1233]

Right! Many black people hate hearing the word. Just like “queer” or “***” within the LGBT community.

If Elton John included “queer” in a song, I wouldn’t be surprised if straight people sang it when singing along.

 

[KathySantoni]

I have created a list of events based on what I have heard happened.

• Music is on during a cool down session. Song has the N-word.
• Several gymnasts are singing and dancing to it, Alexis joins in.
  3.Alexis is called out in front of everyone by a gymnast that is not black or white.
  Alexis asks why it’s ok for her to sing it if she is not black?
• Words are exchanged and Alexis explains she sees herself as a person of color and says she will sing to whatever songs are on.
• For days they continue to have loud music on with the N word in it and Alexis sings along.
• More drama.
• Alexis claims that people are stealing from her.
• She finds sardines in her gym bag.
• Someone sprays bleach on her clothes. She confronts several gymnasts calling them whores, FOB’s (also called herself that) and claims they have a “Niggardly” understanding of freedom of speech.
• Someone reports that Alexis is being harassed.
• Someone else reports that Alexis harassed them when she sang along to the song.
• Interviews are conducted in regards to the harassment.
• Some gymnasts become upset that an investigation into Alexis using the “n-word” is not launched.
• A lot happened behind closed doors. Alexis “did not look ok”.

 

[Doug1233]

claims they have a “Niggardly” understanding of freedom of speech

THIS is the part that is most concerning, if true.

Alexis simply cannot say this without consequences.

 

[Sasha]

It’s an interesting word choice. Niggardly is etymologically unrelated to the N-word, but can be provocative nonetheless given the similarity (and the fact that most people don’t know they’re unrelated). Was Jeffrey aware of this?

 

[Doug1233]

Was Jeffrey aware of this?

I cannot imagine that she wasn’t.

 

[JaJa]

Right in this context niggardly would mean a narrow understanding of the concept of free speech but can not be seen as an innocent choice of words I do not think. On the other hand it’s not ok to put sardines in her bag or bleach on her stuff and it’s understandable that she got her back up and was reactive. Also, don’t play music if you do not want everyone present to sing along. Honestly it sounds like a good deal of bad behavior on many peoples part here.

 

[Sasha]

Sorry, I’m not sure I was clear. I’m wondering whether she knows the two words are unrelated, or not. It’s one thing to deliberately use a provocative word in an already charged situation, it’s another to use it if you think it’s actually a racial slur. Either is shitty, but as you were arguing earlier, one is shittier than the other.

 

[Sasha]

Honestly it sounds like a good deal of bad behavior on many peoples part here.

I’m inclined to agree with you on that.

 

[JaJa]

THIS is the part that is most concerning, if true.

Alexis simply cannot say this without consequences.

Unless she was provoked, which at that point she may well have been.

 

[Doug1233]

Unless she was provoked

I wouldn’t even think it was justified, then.

 

[Doug1233]

I can’t see any context where “niggardly”, used in these circumstances, would not be used in an intentionally offensive manner.

Imagine having an argument about whether or not something is homophobic, and someone responds that “that’s a faggotly argument”.

I am sure that Alexis was not using the word without intending to make a connection to the n-word. I don’t care about the etymology of the word. She simply wasn’t using it in that way.

 

[JaJa]

If she was singing along with a song others were singing and dancing to, and then someone put sardines in her bag and bleach on her clothes I can see her being extremely provoked. As I said, I see bad behavior on a lot of peoples parts here.

 

[JaJa]

I think we all agree it was not an innocent or coincidental use of the term. The question is, by the time she used it was she sufficiently provoked.

 

[QuietColours]

I’d disagree that there’s a point of being sufficiently provoked to hate speech.

It doesn’t matter how much you provoke me–if I punch you for you it, it’s still assault.

 

[Doug1233]

was she sufficiently provoked

No amount of provokation would justify using it.

 

[Doug1233]

On the other hand it’s not ok to put sardines in her bag or bleach on her stuff and it’s understandable that she got her back up and was reactive.

Both sides were stupid. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[JaJa]

Not justification, but it really does make it somewhat more understandable. Look, if someone put sardines in my bag and sprayed my clothes with bleach, in response to my singing along with a song they themselves were singing and dancing to, I would be livid. And I would react. Not the way she did, but I am a 50 something lawyer, not a college kid. No one is innocent here. And they all needed to apologize and talk it out. No one sided apology.

 

[JaJa]

Both sides were stupid. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

Now that’s a compelling legal argument. . But actually, I think you are exactly right. But one side is not more guilty than the other. Although given the current political climate, Alexis’ speech was more inflammatory.

 

[JaJa]

doesn’t matter how much you provoke me–if I punch you for you it, it’s still assault

Agreed. Just like it’s a form of battery if you spray my property with bleach. No matter the provocation