Harvard Student Magazine Satirist Writes Racist Garbage, Doesn’t Understand Satire
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:
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":
3) The bizarre slew of Editor notes that have been posted since the "The Asians" was removed. In order:
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.
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 AsianSo 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:
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.
2. The AsianThat 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:
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.
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."And finally:
(If you are curious to know what the fifth stereotype is, just take a quick look around the room. JK!)
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.
1. It calls attention to stereotypes during interviews
ReplyDelete2. It failed because it was offensive but not funny
3. The satirist needs to make sure that they're being over the top and funny in order to make it clear that it's a joke and not just an insult
I agree that the article failed because it was offensive and not funny.
DeleteZoey Stefaniak
1. this article drew my attention because although it was kind of innapropriate (BUT FUNNY :)) it makes us really understand what goes on in interviews.
Delete2. The reason why this article failed was because it was kind of offensive and it also failed to be objective.
3.I beleive that the biggest mistake that a satirist can make is to focus on just one group of people..
R!C#@RD GoM3z
I completely agree that the author failes to bring the humor side to the issues at hand.
DeleteDeja Mitchell
1) This article could be interpreted as a caricature. The reason for this article representing a caricature is that it is a description exaggerating the defects of a person, in this instance, a race.
ReplyDelete2) In my opinion I thought to some they may have been too critical, forcing some to take the article too seriously. The people who wrote the article should have known their audience; Harvard students, alumni, teachers etc.
3) The biggest mistake a satirist could make is knowing his or her audience. Without the correct audience nothing will seem funny and you won't be able to achieve what you intended to accomplish.
Nick Lange
Although you made a wonderful point Nick, I feel as though this article was more invective than a caricature. An audience tends to find caricatures humorous and funny, although knowing that it is in a way inappropriate. When people think something is funny they believe that it has passed humorous and is mostly down right rude.
Delete-Hannah Braun
Nick I agree with your point that a satirist's biggest mistake is insulting their audience.
Delete-Derek
I agree with hannah. This piece of satire uses more invective language and less of a caricature.
DeleteVince Kuranz and christine ensch
Woot, woot! Good discussion thread here. Like Derek, I agree that Nick is 100% accurate in his assessment that offending/misunderstanding your audience is one of the BIGGEST mistakes a satirist can make. And, to address the comments from Hannah, Vince, and Christine, what I'll say is this: I think this piece was INTENDED to be a caricature, but it ended up an invective because it just wasn't effective. It was downright bad.
Delete1. This piece of writing, though trying to be humorous, created the opposite effect on readers. This article could be considered invective due to the fact that it uses insulting words to describe groups of people and is quite insulting.
ReplyDelete2. This piece of satire was a failure since the writer did not use satire properly. He/she took the stereotypes too far to a point where it became insulting to others.
3. The biggest mistake that a satirist could make would be being inconsiderate or insulting towards his audience. It is crucial for a writer to know who his audience will be and what his limits are and to what extent he can take things to.
That was Hannah Braun's post.
DeleteHi Hannah, this is Nick. I agree with your statement when you said that the biggest mistake a satirist could make is being insulting to his/her audience. I wrote the same thing.
DeleteNO! it was mine, Jonah
DeleteI also agree with that comment, that the biggest mistake a satirist can make is being insulting to their audience.
Deletemikala spencer
i agree with the comment to question 1. the article could be considered invective.
Deletesydney croft
1. In agreement with Hannah, i will say the term "invective" is best fit for this article. It is hightly offensive toward the targeted audience and fails to spark humor
ReplyDelete2. Satire is meant to poke fun at things without being unreasonably rude. It is meant to teach a lesson and not be offensive which is why this article fails to be labeled as a satire.
3. The satirist needs to think about / see things from the audiences point of view and ask themseleves if they would be offended if in the others shoes.
GARNELL MURRAY
i love you garnell!!!!!!!!
DeleteWaiiittt... i love garnell more.
DeleteWE ALL LOVE GARNELL:)
Delete1. The issue that it calls attention to is racial stereotypes. It does this by being overly stereotypical and really exagerating. However, it does draw attention to how often times the media is very racially stereotyipical. However, by exagerating it so much it becomes humerous and makes people realize how true it really is.
ReplyDelete2. It fails to use satirical properly becuase it overdoes it so much that it is too far and insulting to people that it refers to.
3. A satirest should have certain reservations about going to far. They need to find a way to make it look like it is someone else saying insulting things and make that person look bad rather than the person that they are pretending to insult.
jonahjacobmeidlzahorodny
1. This article attempts to point out the fact that there is a thin line between being satirical and being offensive.
ReplyDelete2. This article views the piece in question as having gone too far in its attempt to satirize job interviews.
3. The biggest mistake that a satirist could make is accidentally offending their intended audience.
I don't think the article was meant to say they went to far in the attempt of satire. To me it was more saying that their attempt didn't come across as satire, and instead was just stereotypical and overly harsh.
Delete-Sadie N.
I agree with the fact that this article was to point out the fact that there is a thin line between satire and being offensive. Because in my mind it's very easy for a write to cross the line.
Delete-Valerie A.
1. Ths issue is that satire, if done incorrectly, can be viewed as racist and just plain offensive.
ReplyDelete2. The author was not clear that this was satire, and he/she didn't do well explaining his point.
3. A satirist needs to have a clear purpose when writing, and know their audience. Without these things the piece can become viewed as offensive, and not funny.
Christine Ensch
Chris, I agree that the author did not do a very good job explaining his point and failed to specify if this was satire or not.
DeleteLexi Jokisch
1. Th term "invective" definitely one that is best fit for this article. It is highly offensive toward the targeted audience and fails to really be humorous.
ReplyDelete2. Satire is something that is meant to poke fun without being extremely mean, you want your audience to laugh not be disgusted by how rude and offensive you are.This is why this article fails to be labeled as a satire.
3. The satirist needs to think about things from the audiences point of view. This would truly help them to determine how they would feel if they read the article and if they would find it humorous or offensive.
--Mikala Spencer
1. That satire can go too far and actually offend people, defeating it's purpose of wanting to improve rather than destroy.
ReplyDelete2. It was offensive.
3. Not making it clear that the article was satire. If people don't understand that it's satire, then they will get offended.
Nick Hill
1. This article uses extreme exaggeration to call attention to racial stereotypes.
ReplyDelete2. This article fails as a piece of satire because it crosses the line of simply being humorous and comes off as just being insulting.
3. The biggest mistake a satirist could make is not knowing there target audience and accidently insulting their audience. This would cause the author's purpose to be lost and only be offensive.
Derek Wulff
1. This article could be considered invective due to the fact that it uses insulting words to describe groups of people. This in turn makes the satire lose its humor.
ReplyDelete2.This piece of satire was a failure because the Satirist took the stereotypes too far. Instead of being considered humorous it is just insulting.
3.The satirist biggest mistake was not realizing who his audience is. If he is insulting his target audience they will not see the humor in the satire, and as a result it would fail.
Vince Kuranz
Delete1. This article shows that being satiric has to steer clear of stereotypes and offending their audience.
ReplyDelete2. The "satire" was offensive and insulting, making it not okay.
3. The biggest mistake a satirist can make is insulting their audience, in an overkill sort of way that isn't funny to them.
jordty schmidt
Delete1. The article points out that satire, when done wrong, can come off as offensive. Satire has to be thought out carefully otherwise someone can take it the wrong way.
ReplyDelete2. This 'Satire' was much more harsh and straightforward than it should have been. Satire should be humorous with purpose, while this was stereotypical and unfunny making it mean and harsh.
3. The satirist needs to write the piece carefully and read the piece as if they were the person being targeted, this would help them determine if it's a 'benign violation' or just mean.
--Sadie Newholm
1. This article tries to be humorous however it is the exact opposite. the article was very invective, it was very harsh and insulting which is not funny.
ReplyDelete2. it failed because it was more offensive and very sterotypical rather than satire.
3. the biggest mistake a satirist can make is accidentally offending their audience.
sydney croft
1. I think that this article is an example of invective humor. There is no attempt to give suggestions on how this is a flawed system but merely is there to be offensive.
ReplyDelete2. The article most likely started with good intentions about suggesting the sterotypical job interview but ultimately ended up offensive. There was no lesson being taught at any point in the article which satire sets out to do.
3. The author needs to know his/her audience. The author needs to ensure that their readers will not be offended by any remarks made. Satire is meant to poke fun not make readers severely insulted.
Zoey Stefaniak
1. This article calls attention to the fact that it doesn't take much for an article to go from satiric to offensive.
ReplyDelete2. The article is not funny, to anyone. It's just flat out racist and rude. The writer totally missed the mark for satire. It wasn't trying to improve anything, or point out a wrong in society - it was just racist.
3. I think that that a satirist should consider who they want their audience to be, and then write around that. They also have to consider what the audience will think is too far. They need to think about what message their audience will receive from the article. Because that worst think that a satirist can do is offend the person who is reading there article.
- Valerie Armstrong
1. This article points out the flaw of satire that if you do a poor job and people don't know its satire, or it is just offensive without a point behind it then it can be just insulting and not funny.
ReplyDelete2. It failed because unlike most successful satire the article attempts to use stereotypes to get laughs simply because they are stereotypes and has nothing it is trying to get to change, which in turn caused it to be offensive.
3. The biggest mistake a satirist could make is not having an idea in mind that they are trying to change, because without a cause to insult or poke fun at something it is simply going to be taken as a slur or invective.
Logan Schmidt
Good point on #3. Without a predestined purpose, why write an article like this if you aren't just a hate monger?
DeleteIsaac Marti
Nice use of invective!
DeleteI completely agree. If you don't carefully make sure your writing is humorous and has a point, it will only be misunderstood and offensive.
Another great thread! I agree with all of the comments above that address the idea that offending/misunderstanding the audience is a HUGE error in satire, but I think Logan brings up an equally (if not more) important error: a hazy purpose. This article doesn't seem to poke fun at vice or folly (unless of course the author meant to imply that being a certain race is a vice...which, well, we know what that would make this author). Instead, it's just trying to make fun of racial stereotypes. And it does this poorly.
Delete1) This article calls attention to how subtle satire is and how when writing it, the author must remember that being to outright ruins the affect and comes off as offensive
ReplyDelete2) This is a failure because it blatantly insults people without really providing reason
3)The biggest mistake a satirist could make is involving too much personal bias by attacking a specific group or person too much on one thing instead of keeping it general
Carly Amstadt
This article mainly points out failed satire. The writer did a horrible job of establishing the tone to begin with. The point of satire is to go so over the top that it is either satire or ludicrous bigotry (in this case) that would never be published in a recognized school newspaper. The satire failed not only because of lack of obviousness, but because the writer is directly attacking minorities with no substance or ulterior motive. The biggest mistakes in satire, and ones that this writer makes, are not making it clear that the piece isn't serious, as well as not having any goal to the satire itself. Detrimental writing is not satire, and with no purpose all it is is hate.
ReplyDeleteIsaac Marti
I agree completely. If you don't carefully make sure your writing is humorous and has a point, it will only be misunderstood and offensive.
DeleteMax Rutkiewicz
This article calls attention to the chance of satire completely missing the mark, losing all of its potential political effect and instead just offending readers. This is a failure of satire because it provides insult without being funny. The biggest mistake a satirist could make would be to do what the author of this article did, be overly offensive without being humorous. It does absolutely nothing but offend. Instead of motivating change, it destroys your credibility as a writer.
ReplyDeleteJaime Due
ReplyDelete1. This article calls attention to the issue of distinguishing between satire and just being reckless and offensive
2. The original article failed as satire because it focused more on bashing people without cause than it did educating readers about any sort of issue
3. The biggest mistake a satirist could make is forgetting who their audience is. If the audience is going to be more offended than thoughtful your satirical piece simply won't work. For instance, if Jon Stewert's studio audience was full of hard core republicans his satire would be interpreted as insults.
1. This article calls a lot of attention to the stereotypes in the interviews.
ReplyDelete2. The author did not do a very good job explaining his point and did not specify if this was satire.
3. The author needs to focus more on who the audience is so that he doesn't completely insult them to a point where it really offends them.
Lexi Jokisch
I agree completely. If the author had made the satiric nature of the piece clear, the other choices made might have been more acceptable...if acceptable at all.
DeleteJacob Stolte
ReplyDelete1.The article show the many issues with poorly written, if we can call it that, satire. The fact that satire cannot be blatantly adds to the point the author wishes to make. The reader must decide which social norm has been fractured then dwell deeper on the topic. The fact that the topic can be very serious in nature creates morality and humor in pointing out the falls and flaws. Satire is not purely mockery.
2. I think it would suffice to revisit answer one with the addition of the idea that you can simply ridicule someone in satire yet it must take on a relatively throughout intelligent tone. In the context of this article the reader would assume a business setting and to be satirical the tone would have to establish it as such.
3. Satirist could make the mistake of just writing a humorous piece with the addition of a deeper more challenging idea. The piece solely informs and doesn't leave the audience to form their own conjectures.
1. It is pointing out the flaws in the interview, mainly the ridiculous number of stereotypes.
ReplyDelete2. The author didn't make it clear that it was a satiric piece, and didn't explain his reasoning enough.
3. They needs to be aware of who their audience is to avoid angering them, which it turn, leads them to lose all positive interest.
- Joe M
1. The main issue, besides the fact that the article was OBVIOUSLY poorly written, was that the author managed to stray from sarcasm and dive right into blatant stereotyping, which depleted the article of all humorous value.
ReplyDelete2.The article failed because it became a racist rant. The kind of racist rant that makes you migrate to the far corner of the room in discomfort.
3.The worst mistake a satirist can make is to approach a controversial subject with little or no regard for the audience.
-Sara Spry
1. This article is very offensive in a way that doesn't support change. It just shows the flaws, while Satire proposes change.
ReplyDelete2. The author did a very poor job of showing that this piece is satire. He never proposed some sort of change.
3. The author needs to focus more on the audience as to not deliberately insult people to a point of awfulness. They need to focus more on change.
This is Max Rutkiewicz
Delete1)This article points attention to how when writing satire you need to be aware that if you go to far with it, it turns out to be ofensive.
ReplyDelete2)Since the author didnt point out directly it was satiric it turned out to be not funny and way to offensive
3)the bell has rung
What issue associated with satire does this article call attention to?
ReplyDeleteThe article calls attention to stereotypes, specifically related to race, and how it may affect a piece.
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?
It is only criticising and giving no constructive feedback or opportunity for change. It sounds more like blatant meanness rather than 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.
The goal of a satirist is to mock or criticize society and its flaws in a way that the audience will understand and enjoy. The biggest mistake that could be made by a satirist is to take a criticism too far. This could happen because of the expansion of a criticism to a point where it is attacking the audience, because the satire is too blatantly critical, or because the satire ha been made too complex to understand. To avoid this a satirist must attempt to keep their piece at a level that the audience will understand and find funny.
-Ella Arnold
Delete1) The article brings attention to the issue of racism. There are many points that let/ help the reader understand that if the sarcasm has nothing to bac it up and only creates angry readers its probably not the best. The stereotype played up on by trhe article offended many and should have been avoided.
ReplyDelete2)By not playing up on the satiric side of the issue and making it overlly obvious that the peice was indeed satiric the author does not sucsessfully dropp in rasist comments while being funny, all in all they came of offensive and rude. The diction used supports my statements.
3) The author needs a lesson on how to be satiric, and how to bring up issues in a more eliquent manner.
Deja Mitchell