Harvard — the storied Ivy League that's produced many great comedic
writers well-versed in the time-honored rich people traditions of
"joshing" and "ribbing" — has apparently lost its edge/mind. The art of
subtle satire has been one of the staples of their comedy scene for
quite some time — turning out the likes of Conan O'Brien and some other
funny-ish white bros — but they've really dropped the ball at their
student-run magazine,
Harvard Voice.
A Harvard attendee brought the
recently published article,
5 People You'll See at Pre-Interview Receptions,
to our attention. In it "Anonymous" (more on this later) runs down a
host of [crappy] stereotypes of the students who are idiotic enough to
want jobs. It's all pretty dumb but the [crappiest] has to be:
2. The Asian
You can always spot the Asian contingent at every pre-interview
reception. They dress in the same way (satin blouse with high waisted
pencil skirt for girls, suits with skinny ties for boys), talk in the
same sort-of gushy, sort-of whiny manner, and have the same
concentrations and sky-high GPAs. They're practically indistinguishable
from one another, but it's okay. Soon, they will be looking at the same
Excel spreadsheets and spend their lunch talking about their meaningful
morning conversations with the helpdesk of Bloomberg. Uniqueness is
overrated when you make six-figure salaries.
So
many problems here. Where to begin? First off, way too many words. I
could've gotten the job done in a way less space. Please see:
2. The Asian
You can always spot the Asian contingent at every pre-interview
reception because they are Asian and all Asian people look and act the
same Ching Chang Chong Man Rice Paddy Hat.
That about covers it, right? But perhaps the worst part of this whole thing are the poor choices the
Harvard Voice editors made after the piece was published. Let's explore their decisions:
1)
Originally publishing it as written by "The Voice Staff" and then
changing it to "Anonymous" when, I can only assume, they started
receiving complaints. What happened, The Voice Staff?? If you can't
stand by something you publish, then don't print it in the first place.
And if you did made a mistake, strike through that [crap] (and I do mean [crap]) and issue an apology, like a g-d grown-up.
2) Erasing the entirety of "The Asians" section and
replacing it with "The Super-Interviewee," which might make even less sense.
3) They obviously forgot to erase this crazy bit from "5. The Hipster":
The
alternative kid spends most of their 20 minutes at the reception
standing in a corner, mocking the Asian ass-kissers in their heads, and
secretly hating themselves for being there and "selling out."
Now that bit has the added bonus of being racist
and not making any sense!
3) The bizarre slew of Editor notes that have been posted since the "The Asians" was removed. In order:
Note
from the Editors: We deeply apologize if this satirical article is
viewed by some as racially stereotyping and offensive. However, we stand
by our decision to publish this piece as a different look at the
recruiting process at Harvard, which is notoriously dominated by finance
and consulting.
And then:
Note from the Editors:
We deeply apologize if this article has offended our readers. Though
the article was written by an anonymous contributor, we have removed the
inappropriate content because it is not in line with The Voice‘s
mission of promoting satirical, yet inclusive, content.
Note from the Writer:
Clearly, I've been censored, which in itself is an interesting
reflection on free speech in America. If you couldn't tell that this
article was satire, then we have bigger problems than me being
"offensive."
(If you are curious to know what the fifth stereotype is, just take a quick look around the room. JK!)
And finally:
Note from the Editors:
We deeply apologize if this article has offended our readers. Though
the article was written by an anonymous contributor, we have removed the
inappropriate content because it is not in line with The Voice‘s
mission of promoting satirical, yet inclusive, content.
Jesus.
The writer understands satire and free speech just about as well as the
editors understand apologizing. For real, what is even happening over
there!? I fully expect the next update to be, "We've been taken hostage,
please send one (1) tiny violin, three (3) packages of Triple Stuffed
Oreos, and seventeen (17) boxes of two-ply Kleenex."
I can't
decide whether this whole thing is more offensive because it's racist or
because it's just not funny? Maybe those two things just amplify each
other — kinda like how sour cream and chives work in tandem to make a
baked potato more delicious? Racism and unfunny do the same thing, but
with grossness. I think a certain Lampoon alumni needs to go back and
teach a schoolwide course in satire, irony, humor, and maybe also,
having cute red hair and being extra tall and adorable. Yes?
Of
course, then again, racism is over, we don't need Affirmative Action,
the world is a melting pot of rainbows, shoot me in the face, etc.
5 People You'll See at Pre-Interview Receptions [The Harvard Voice Magazine]
UPDATE:
Check out The Harvard Crimson's
excellent reporting on
the issue. Hopefully this will keep students engaged!
In a comment to this post, please respond to the following in a thoughtful, thorough, and insightful manner.
Please include your name in your comment. AFTER YOU CREATE A COMMENT, PLEASE COME BACK TO THIS POST AND RESPOND TO AT LEAST ONE OTHER STUDENT. YOUR RESPONSE CAN BE AN AFFIRMATIVE REPLY WITH ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, OR IT CAN BE A REFUTING REPLY WITH EXPLANATIONS.
- What issue associated with satire does this article call attention to?
- In the context of this article (considering the information provided regarding the "satire" in question), what made the article 5 People You'll See at Pre-Interview Receptions a failure in terms of satire?
- Considering the "cautions" and scorn of this article regarding satire, what are you feelings regarding the considerations a satirist should have when he or she writes to make sure that the satire is actually successful and not just blatant insult or damage? In other words, what do you think the biggest mistake is that a satirist could make? Explain yourself please.
