Not Just “Jacks Being Jacks”
This past week, a video featuring South Dakota State University students using hate speech surfaced on social media and the instinctive reaction on rival campuses has been pretty predictable, to point, cringe and move forward.
Responding to bigoted behavior with dismissiveness undermines the bigger picture. What happened at SDSU exposes a much deeper statewide problem about who feels protected on campus and who doesn’t.
Hate speech doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, and in this instance, it reflects a cultural climate where some students feel comfortable saying things they assume will not have consequences. When the use of slurs becomes casual, the cost of discrimination is low and responses from institutions will be even lower.
SDSU is only facing the noise because the video surfaced in their campus community, however, the underlying issue is not unique to Brookings. Every campus in South Dakota has students who have heard comments like these before. Maybe not specifically in a video, but in group chats, at tailgates, downtown, in classrooms, etc.
What is most frustrating about this particular instance is how quickly people have been to minimize the video as just “boys being boys.” That type of framing is only furthering the harm already done by dismissing it all together.
For marginalized students, hate speech isn’t a joke or a lapse in judgement; it instead serves as a reminder that their safety can be conditional depending on who’s around them and whether or not anyone is willing to intervene.
So far, SDSU has only responded to the incident with a statement ensuring the community that they do not condone the actions of these students and will be investigating further.
However, SDSU now has an obligation to respond with more than just a generic statement and a slap on the wrist. Transparency, consequences and a clear plan to address a campus climate where students feel safe to target marginalized students is essential.
Rival schools also shouldn’t view this instance as an opportunity to moralize themselves from a distance. If anything they should be using this moment to reflect their own campus culture and ask “are we too creating a space where students feel protected while engaging with discrimination?”
“Are we equipping our community with the tools to challenge harmful behavior when they see it?” “Are we holding our own institutions accountable to the standards we expect from others?”
Rivalry does not exempt USD from responsibility, and if anything it should push our institution to demand better. Not because it makes another school look bad, but because students in South Dakota deserve campuses where hate speech isn’t normalized nor protected.
