Column: The Maneater isn't diverse enough
Published May 7, 2010
So it's time for me to say my a-fucking-dieu to The Maneater. Looking back, it's been a year. There have been good times (I can't really think of any right now, but I'm writing under the influence of frustration); there have been bad times and comments. But Maneater, thanks for giving me a forum and the seed money for drinks — I needed them.
During my tenure, I've been quiet about the fact The Maneater needs a lot of diversity work. This week's "10 most influential on campus" did nothing but shine a spotlight on the more problematic aspects of The Maneater. Let this be clear: I respect and admire all those who landed in those spots; I am even lucky enough to consider some my good friends.
But there were some notable exceptions. With the amazing diversity programming that went on this year, I find it hard to believe that The Maneater could not think of any more influential students of color.
Last week AAA, under outgoing President Kha Ly, brought Kollaboration, a nationwide movement to illuminate Asian-American talent, to Jesse Hall. Not only did AAA bring talented Asian students from all over the Midwest, but they managed to get a nationally-known comedian to emcee and brought Questcrew, the season three winners of America's Best Dance Crew to perform, sign autographs and attend an after party. Read that again — that is some big shit. They did that by themselves. So where was the AAA presence on most influential?
SASA and MSO and all other Four Front groups have consistently put on awesome programming for their organizations that is not only engaging, but also enlightening and fun. Where was this coverage? And well-meaning white people who'd like to be educated, where were you?
This week, Sean Nahlik took The Maneater to task for the horrendous state of diversity on their pages. I'd like to take a moment to applaud Sean and co-sign on every single thing he said. Looking at this publication from a somewhat insider-y position, I can't help but nod and shake my head sadly.
The Maneater has and can do better. It's great that The Maneater employed a columnist like me, unafraid to be berated for daring to speak openly about the fucked-up politics of race in this country, but it is not enough. The Maneater needs more voices from people of color in the newsroom consistently, and they need to cover diversity events — not just when we're angry, but also when we doing the celebrating and the educating people think we're not doing enough of.
And if diverse journalists are not rushing out to join The Maneater staff, well, maybe The Maneater staff should look at themselves and ask why.
Court NABJ, the National Association of Black Journalists. Court the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, Asian journalists or LGBTQ journalists, because honestly, this shit ain't cutting it.
On the real: I came close to unceremoniously quitting The Maneater several times this semester. I didn't feel like writing for a publication who clearly didn't "get it" was worth all the shit I was getting. And I don't mean the same old, "ChaToyya is a racebaiter" shit. I mean the brave soul who emailed me from an anonymous account saying maybe if someone 'taught me a lesson' through sexual assault I'd shut up. I mean the fine commenters on Chimpout who titled a thread (thanks guys!) about me: "Hideous Nigger Bitch Chimps Because Humans Don't Like It's Ghetto Name" (I am not kidding) type. And whoever out there in the newsroom is approving the comments, I'm pretty sure calling women "feminist dykes" classifies as a slur.
So would I do it all again? Sure, I learned to be unafraid of my opinions. I learned resilience, and I learned to meet deadlines (sort of, sorry about that editors!) But would I do it next semester? Hell no.
Comments (22)
11:49 a.m., May 7, 2010
Amy Williams said:
For what it's worth, I loved every column you wrote this semester. The hipster piece last fall is something I continually email to friends. You and Sean are right about how problematic the lack of diversity in the Maneater is. I'm glad both of you are stepping up to say something. I hope the Maneater reevaluates their priorities next year and selects another columnist as dedicated to social justice as you.
3:33 p.m., May 7, 2010
Someone who cares said:
You are a narcissistic racist. You think you're on the front lines of civil rights issues? That war was fought and won by individuals far greater than you. They were dealing with having different schools, bathrooms, restaurants, and the inability to attend any 'whites only' events. Not about whether or not there is enough minorities working at a newspaper that no one really reads. If the Maneater employed nothing but minorities, would you have as much zeal to go after them? Not enough diversity, right? Or is it because an absence of white people isn't that bad? Of course, there isn't any need for the type of comments you have highlight that you have received. I guess I just thought maybe we were beyond this. Does the color of your skin define you so much that you can't get beyond it? What about your sexuality? When I introduce myself, I don't start with, "I'm a straight white male". You don't get rights or privileges based on your race, sexual preference, gender, or income. Your rights were endowed to you by your creator - the same rights to life, liberty, and property that every other person in the world has. This is because they are human, not because they are a member of some minority group. Now I know that my avoidance of eye contact, glance, smile, choice of seating in a classroom is perceived as racism. It's a game I'm not willing to play. Maybe it's a maturity issue? Adios.
3:50 p.m., May 7, 2010
Josh Travis said:
One of many frustrations that students have with this publication. All I can say is preach girl!
5:13 p.m., May 7, 2010
Laura said:
With you gone and clearly the maneater feeling the need to get defensive instead of realize the crap they put out, trust me I am done reading this horrible publication. The maneater is and has been a joke and now their rhetoric and ignorance to their own issues with diversity calls to question what is really happening at this school.
6:11 p.m., May 7, 2010
Amanda said:
Unfortunately for those who would like it to be more simplistic, the battle for all racial equality was not ended in the 1960s, just as the battle for gender equality was not wholesale "won" with the the creation of the pill or Roe v. Wade. The fact that Ms. Sewell was exposed to such race and gender-based hate as a result of her columns is evident of the continuing struggle for equal treatment. To be honest, I did not agree with a good deal of what Ms. Sewell has said in her column. Some of it I found divisive. But that doesn't mean I didn't benefit from reading it. We are all responsible for starting and maintaining a progressive discourse, and I hope that our campus benefits from such openness.
7 p.m., May 7, 2010
Rachel Kuo said:
You've had a lot of amazing columns, and I'm so proud to have known you while I've been at MU. Your article definitely voiced a lot of my thoughts when I saw the "10 Most Influential List." While those 10 have done great things for MU, it's so true that the list could have been more inclusive and definitely more diverse. The Maneater has done a good job covering diversity issues sometimes, and hopefully in the coming future, it will be motivated to do more. In a way, it's not just a problem with only the student newspaper but campus itself---the issue of diversity just needs more work and attention here at Columbia. Hopefully your articles and your work will inspire more minority journalists and more students in general to get more involved :)
8:27 p.m., May 7, 2010
Sean Nahlik said:
To this fool, "Someone who cares," who is using internet anonymity to hide their identity: We do not live in a post-racist world. Just because there are no longer "separate but equal facilities" does NOT mean that the Civil Rights movement is over. Subversive forms of discrimination (like those that occur in journalism through selective coverage) are probably the greatest continuing threats to complete equality. And yes, you do get rights and privileges based on race, sexual preference, gender, and income. Don't babble about some "Creator-endowed rights" bullshit. I cannot get married in most states due to my sexual orientation. (Preference? Sorry, not a choice.) I am denied rights by default. Income? Less money leads to a reduced possibility of going to college in turn leading to lower-income jobs. Gender? Please. Name all of the female CEOs you can think of. And Oprah/Rowling don't count in this women-with-money/power equation since it entails the CEOs of businesses, not media giants. You're an idiot. Now, stop looking from your straight white male privileged standpoint and ATTEMPT to understand things from the perspective of a minority. It may do you well.
9:36 p.m., May 7, 2010
Anthony said:
So to be clear, you're saying it's the Maneater's obligation to go out of their way to try to convince minorities to write for it? If you think not enough opinions are being represented, maybe you should convince more people with different opinions to step forward and write. If the Maneater is doing anything to discriminate against or provide a hostile work environment for minorities, then by all means call them out. But otherwise I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
12:56 a.m., May 8, 2010
Jared said:
I makes me sick to think that you can actually type this article, proof read it, and then turn it in to youe editor thinking that you have in some way just made the earth a better place. If you honestly in your right mind think that a liberal student run newspaper like the Maneater would in anyway, shape, or form be a racist organization, your mental. You continually target and speakout against overly "White" saturated groups,television shows and so on, yet you always fail to mention other areas of segregation, like how is it that any one but and African American is allowed into fraternities or sororities such as Alpha Phi Alpha or Delta Sigma Theta. If you want to keep spreading your message of "equality" I suggest you start by looking in the mirror.
1:49 p.m., May 8, 2010
Someone who cares said:
To this simple Nahlik, you can not legislate morality. Our prejudices were well formed before ever any of us ever met. Also, I would suspect a man of your rhetoric would want the separation of church and state to be upheld to a high degree. I don't want to give a history lesson, but marriage was founded by religious institutions. The government shouldn't recognize it, but this is a different issue. Although, I should have used a different word than 'preference' to describe sexual orientation. I'm a bit at a loss of your position. You think you have the RIGHT to a college education? On whose tab? Who granted you that right? And you would define the gender equality as only being achieved if there is an equal number of female and male CEO's? This seems like an oversimplified achievement mark. Overall, you have let your own identity claim reign over your argument. Equality isn't something that can be absolutely forced. Look beyond your race, sex, sexuality, gender, and income and come to the ultimate conclusion: you are human. Humans need be granted only the rights that any other human be granted.
7:22 p.m., May 8, 2010
Sam D'Agostino said:
Jared. Maybe YOU should learn to proof read (not to mention do some research: neither APA nor DST discriminate based on race). SWC: Prejudice does not equal destiny. Nor should you be proud of the prejudices you have. You can overcome, or at least come to terms with, your prejudice--if you work at it. As to your comment re: equality: sure, everyone "need be granted only the rights that any other human be granted." That's just the thing: we do not as a nation grant everyone the same rights. We haven't since the get go: one only needs to look at voting rights at the start of our democracy to realize how unequal a playing field we started on. Oh, before I forget: just because you do not see the same overt signs of something does not mean it is gone (by the way: babies learn this. It is called object permanence). Rather than trying to talk over someone with anonymous postings, why not try to ask a question? Why not ask: "Chatoyya, I don't really understand where you are coming from. Could you explain some of the points you made?" Have a conversation. We are the marketplace of ideas, after all.
2:57 a.m., May 9, 2010
Truth said:
To Jared. I am an African-American female on campus who started off with mostly White friends. Through out my career here I have branched out to different races, actually taking friends to events that are usually majority of single race. One type of event are NPHC parties (those are the council for the fraternities/sororities you mentioned) First off, any one of any race or class can join them. My mother went to an HBCU in the 80s and had a white girl in her pledge and an asian girl as her neophyte. It has nothing to do with purposeful exclusion, people migrate to where they feel comfortable. Please show me some rule book or credible source you saw/heard this "only African-Americans is allowed into fraternities and sororities... that you mentioned. Because that is not the case. UMC is not the end all be all of any racial matters, especial those of the NPHC so please, just because what you see on THIS campus is one way, don't mistake it for the norm. I have one friend now who is Caucasian and joining Omega Psi Phi in NC because that is the one fraternity he felt most comfortable with and he most belonged too. So please, before you PUBLICIZE something as truth, make sure you have your facts straight.
10:04 a.m., May 9, 2010
Josh said:
Is there any reason to believe the Maneater is purposefully excluding minorities from its staff/columnists? Nope. You're here. You just want something to bitch about and blaming it on the 'other side' (i.e. white people) is easier than looking at it from other other way around. And not to mention it's probably racist to assume everything lacking in diversity has something to do with discrimination or white people. Not everything is racist. Forced diversity is NOT the most important thing in the world: at best it does something we would already do, at worst it encourages demographic conflict. I think you'd be hard-pressed, among college students, to find much *actual* racial discrimination. Find a different forum to whine about this.
5:29 p.m., May 9, 2010
Someone is Bitter said:
It seems that this is one of the most bitter articles Chatoyya has written so far. I would not compare minority programming to someone who can single-handedly make a crowd of 75,000 people shout his name, or walk into the chancellor's office and talk about sustainability (or walk into the chancellors office at all.) Minority programming is great but with enough money anyone could throw an event and get people from across the midwest to come (its called mizzou football.) So before you get pissed that a black person was not influential just think about how YOU were influential today...
7:36 p.m., May 9, 2010
Someone who cares said:
@Sam: Acknowledgment does not imply pride. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
9:47 p.m., May 9, 2010
Somebody said:
My professor gave this white boy a better grade on a test recently. I see racism is alive and well in America smh...
12:49 a.m., May 10, 2010
Shane Schofield said:
Gays aren't the only ones prohibited from getting married, but they're the only ones you hear about it from on a daily basis. Even as a straight male, every state prohibit me from marrying more than one woman, which is also a preference, rather than a choice. The Maneater is, and has been garbage for awhile now, but it isn't so much the alleged lack of diversity, but the type of columnist that this girl is. AAA brought in a group to perform and you think that's deserving of a place on Mizzou's 10 Most Influential? Does that influence student heavily? How many people attended? How many of those were students? As for the minority programming? Who's the primary target audience? Is it intended for a audience that doesn't fit the demographic of the group? Is it well advertised? If the type of person that's going to be at this event is the type of person that's represented in this column, I sure as heck want to stay as far away from this theoretical event as possible. You accuse the Maneater of having an agenda, and maybe they do. Definitely they do. But so do you and so does Sean Nahlik. You want what you want not out of some angelic attempt for total and complete equality, but for personal selfish reasons. Sean Nahlik wants to marry a man, so he fights for his right to do that, but doesn't mention the other types of couples that are unable to wed in this country. You want more minority recognition, but your body of work has not shone a favorable light on your alleged plight. All these minority leaders that have been identified in columns and letters similar to yours are great and all, but are they influential on a larger scale, outside their respective organizations? I've spent time around different organizations, and minority groups are just as discriminatory to students not of their particular race as mainstream groups are. If not more so. You can't force culture on anyone. You probably have very little interest in many of the things that I do, just as I have little interest in the things you enjoy. And you can't and shouldn't care whether I, or any other student thinks differently than you. It's tough for me to respect your feelings and attitudes when you show so very little respect towards others.
10:43 p.m., May 11, 2010
Sam D'Agostino said:
SWC, I'm afraid yours is a simplistic at best, and inaccurate at worst, understanding of racism. While any form of oppression most likely includes a form of collectivism, that is just one aspect of a much broader picture. I think that you, again, should ask questions. I would also point to recent events in our history that suggest that free market economies have failed outright in increasing to a proportional level the wealth distribution among different demographics in our nation. I would also argue that, as our market became further deregulated, these disparities increased, rather than decrease as your hypothesis suggests would happen. Also, in regards to the idea that forming a group identity is somehow wrong-headed: you talk about the creator. Are not all religions based on the foundation of creating a group identity? And, moreover, aren't we a nation forged from a group identity? What is the difference between your ideal of total liberty, and anarchism?
9:55 a.m., May 12, 2010
Yantezia said:
Shane, I just have to say 1) one's sexual orientation is not a preference. And preference and choice are fairly interchangeable. One does not have a preference for woman over men if she is a lesbian, there was never any choice or consideration towards men because there was not an attraction. That said, your argument that there are states where you can't get married based on your preference versus say a gay male such as Sean are two different things. Sean doesn't prefer men over women. There isn't a choice or a hierarchy. While I grant that one's desire to be polygamous does deviate from the norm and is rejected, it's not fundamentally not the same. It's clear that after reading many of the comments on this thread, many of our peers have no real foundation in the understanding of racial relations either a) from a real historical standpoint meaning one that comes from a place other than white textbooks or b) from a theoretical standpoint. There are fundamental reasons both in the world and at the university that cause Ms. Sewell to make the points she has made. Most minority students know that history very well, are white peers often do not. Although this is not entirely their own fault. It is merely an example of what it is like to be white, navigating a white world and have few instance if any where you are forced to think of your own race or other identities that deviate from the norm and have a conversation about them.
5:02 p.m., May 12, 2010
Someone who cares said:
@Yantezia: I don't think it is a matter of navigating through the 'white world' after reading my 'white textbooks' as much as navigating through the world without a chip on my shoulder. How do we misinterpret the history of racism? Where have our 'white history' books lead us astray? Where will the discrimination end! What about the 'black textbooks'? I haven't read them. Do you think maybe they have lead you astray about the history of 'racism'?
11:47 a.m., May 7, 2010
Jack Goslin said:
Excellent! I loved reading your columns this semester. It was the only reason I picked up the Maneater and I'm glad I did because I learned a wealth of information about the state of race issues in America. Honestly, I had no idea until I read your columns.