Dear Editor,
I feel the need to respond to Jackie Everhardt III’s letter, “No Discrimination,” because my statements were clearly misunderstood. First, I understand the definition of minority and do not need a dictionary reference. Never did I claim that smokers are not minorities; I said that one cannot place smokers and people of color in the same category simply because they are each minority groups. To do so would be to oversimplify the discrimination faced by people of color.
Second, I did not make the claim that the blackface “incident” was an act against socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Everhardt compared wearing black facepaint to wearing “some hillbilly outfit.” I explained that “making fun of white farmers” is comparable to the blackface “incident” in that it exhibits prejudice against an entire class of people. However, it is different because the blackface “incident” discriminated based on skin color, which is innate, rather than discriminating based on socioeconomic status.
Lastly, I disagree with the final point that was made in Everhardt’s letter. Yes, the students should be evaluated and disciplined appropriately by ETSU and by their fraternity. I disagree, though, that they shouldn’t be judged for their actions. That is an all-too-common mistake made when it comes to racism. If the students, faculty and staff of ETSU disregard this “incident” as simply that, the inherent racist thought behind such actions will go unexamined and unchanged.
Without properly analyzing and judging discriminatory acts as such, the prejudice that underlies these “incidents” is perpetuated. Don’t fool yourself; racism is a pervasive phenomenon. If we don’t judge the racist actions of these young men, we will do ourselves a great injustice by allowing discrimination to further silence minorities and force us into compliance with the ugliness that is prejudice.
– Meghan Dillie

Author