UCSB Apes Sleaze Culture

Ivan Haynes recently wrote an opinion piece for the Nexus entitled "I.V. Gangsta Parties Promote Stereotypes."   What a great piece.  If I understood his position correctly,  Ivan was  offended because some UCSB party-animal types like to have " Gangsta" theme parties.  This is a party were everyone dresses and talks like black gangstas.   Ivan was offended because he felt that the parties glamorizes a violent lifestyle that is very damaging to the black community – and extremely dangerous.   Ivan made his point very clearly when he said, "Life as a gang member is not fun, and it is nothing to celebrate."  It would appear that in addition to believing that the gangsta lifestyle should not be promoted because it is dangerous and destructive.  He was also offended by the racial insensitivity that many UCSB gangsta party goers showed to the black community (non gangsta community that is).

We agree with Ivan – the UCSB party scene can be offensive – and, it is offensive at many levels.  First, to Ivan's point: it is offensive to see upper-middle-class and rich white kids aping gangsta lifestyle.  But his call for sensitivity is lost on those drunken little snots.   They are only interested in their party fun, not your feelings, Ivan.  However, I have a possible solution that might highlight their insensitivity in what I think would be a rather humorous way.  Maybe you should throw an Arian Nation party and ask the white boys if you can borrower their brown-shirts.  That would really be a hoot – a bunch of black kids dressed as rednecks and aping white supremacist – you know, shaved heads, swastika tattoos and Nazi flags.  To spice up the party even more, you could all throw around some really fun anti-Semitic comments and say the N word a lot (but really mean it as like the Arians do not like the gangsta use it).  We could go on with this satire but the irony is too obvious to waste time writing about.  Suffice it to say that we agree that gangsta parties are offensive.  

But perhaps while we are on the subject of insensitive and dangerous behavior, we can convince Ivan, other students at UCSB, and the UCSB administration who found his article enlightening to consider some other offensive and dangerous parties traits at UCSB.  If it is not OK to ape gangsta, why is OK to ape alcoholics, drug addicts and sluts (we include both sexes and all sexual orientations when we refer to slutty behavior at UCSB).  At least the gangsta parties were a private affair and not officially sanctioned by the university.  The same cannot be said of many glamorizations of aberrant and dangerous behaviors promoted by UCSB and its affiliates such as the Nexus. 

It's not OK to ape gangstas but it is OK to ape excessive alcohol consumption to the readers of the Nexus – most of whom are too young to drink legally.  It's not OK to ape the gangstas but it is OK to ape slutty behavior.  Why is it not OK to play gangsta but it is OK to play druggy, drunkard, or slut?   I don't know of many people who play gangsta and then are addicted to the lifestyle.  I do know of plenty of people whose lives were destroyed by alcohol, drugs and other aberrant behavior.  One other point, I cannot recall anyone at UCSB writing opposition opinions to the Nexus articles promoting sex, booze or drugs.    

I am not suggesting that the university censor the Nexus.  The Nexus can print anything it likes.  The fact that they print articles that denigrate women, promote sexual promiscuity, and promotes drug and alcohol abuse is it's right.    The fact that they encourage people under 21 to drink to excess is up to them. However, the university does not have to allow them to use the university's name.  Make no mistake that the use of the school's name makes the Nexus approved by the university.  The university allows a small percentage of students to promote their sleaze at the expense of the universities image.  Let's hope that the new editor-in-chief has what it takes to change the paper from its mundane high school, sophomoric potty-mouth rag to a paper that is worth reading (our apologies to those at the Nexus who actually do some serious work).  

As long as you have a "party school" mentality with students and institutions at UCSB displaying obvious pride in the party excesses and promoting even further destructive behaviors, the school will continue to suffer from image problems.  But more importantly, the lives of thousands of students will be negatively impacted.  How many more people have to lose their lives by failing off cliffs while drunk or stoned?  How many more highway fatalities because of drunk UCSB drivers.  How many more women have to be sexually assaulted?  How many more UCSB students have to be drug or alcohol addicted?   How many more will pay the price before Yang has the guts to even open his mouth.

The next time you go to some drunken party (themed or not), consider how many people have been damaged by alcohol and drug abuse at UCSB.  Over a hundred dead,  thousand of sexual assaults, and thousand upon thousands of students whose lives have be adversely affected by alcohol and drug abuse.  We don't have data on the number of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions that were occasioned by drugs and alcohol.  

Unfortunately, there is very little prospect of the situation changing in the UCSB/IV party scene.  The UCSB Rules and Regulation Committee just voted to not punish students who engage in "egregious cases of alcohol distribution and drug sale or manufacture in Isla Vista." So in the minds of the committee, it is OK for students to stay at UCSB who are convicted of "egregious" acts of furnishing alcohol to minors. It is also just fine with UCSB to manufacture and sell drugs.  Since the students only have five seats on the committee, at least two, and probably 3 faculty voted to keep drug manufacturers and dealers in school – even if they commit multiple felonies.  

While we at the Dark Side would have preferred to see the school expel drug dealers and drug manufacturers, the failure of the committee to change the rules is actually of very little consequence since UCSB does not even enforce the rules that currently exist.  In the past few years, only a handful of students have been suspended or expelled and most of those actions by the board were utterly superfluous  because in most cases the student was not going to be around to attend school anyway because they were, how do you say, "a guest of the State of California."   As reported in the Nexus, "The university first extended its jurisdiction into I.V. in August 2001, when it began subjecting students involved in crimes of physical abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and hazing to university hearings before the Student-Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, which can suspend or expel students."  However, UCSB doesn't enforce these rules.  The case of Cervin Morris is the classic example.  After a number of alcohol related arrests while underage and a student at UCSB, Cervin was on probation (one of the terms of which required that he not drink) for two alcohol related charges when he committed two assaults while drinking (still underage).  One was a misdemeanor and the second assault was a felony and involved an assault with a weapon.  He sent a young man to the hospital.  Guess what UCSB did?  Nothing!  Not only was he allowed to stay in school, he kept his job as A.S. president.  Over the years there have been hundreds of students  that have committed violent acts with impunity. 

To be fair, there have been some exceptions.  Just watch the case of Carlyn Lovell McDonald Jr. who flashed his Willie at a member of the UCSB staff.  Watch how fast this guy gets the boot.  One might say that there is double standard. The staff (in large part because there are unions who demand action) don't have to put up with the abuse that the students are subject to continuously. Additionally, the admin has taken some action to keep former UCSB student Gregor G. L. McIver (alleged rapist) from returning to school.  The exceptions that prove the rule.  Good for the admin on both counts. 

What is truly sad about all this is that Chancellor Yang has the power, through leadership and public condemnation, to change the culture at UCSB. He doesn't need to change the rules.  He merely needs to take some action  It would be easy to claim that Yang is merely weak and therefore unwilling to speak out.  It is more likely that he does not want to highlight any problems.  He prefers to conceal or diminish problems so he can continue to lie to parents.  According to his supporters, they believe that the fact he goes to almost all the funerals and memorial services for students who die, makes him a "wonderful" person.   I would think him wonderful if he would take some action so we had fewer funerals.  Since he never responds to criticism, we don't know why he remains passive when it comes to crime at UCSB/IV.  Yang simply does not respond. 

From our perspective, Yang's mere silence and failure to provide leadership are not as serious as the outright lies he tells parents.  He claims that the school is safe and UCSB takes crime, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, assaults, and sexual assaults seriously – they don't.  Perhaps next year the Dark Side will  provide parents with the actual crime statistic for the UCSB/IV area.  

Thank you, Ivan, for taking the time to point out how you were offended by the gangsta poseurs.  We support your position and hope you and other thoughtful/mature students will consider ours.