by guest contributor Jeff Yang

Hot on the heels of that whole Rosie mess, some of you may have heard of the flap over the Daily Princetonian's publication of a parody op-ed, supposedly from a student named "Lian Ji," in their annual "joke edition" of the student paper. Here's a brief excerpt from "Princeton University Is Racist Against Me, I Mean, Non-Whites":

And yeah, the spelling and broken English goes on. And on. And on. Along with references to doing laundry, working railroads, dog eating, etc.

That said, it wasn't the op-ed alone that goosed my gander–it was the post-publication spin. Faced with a firestorm of controversy over the supposed satire, the Daily Princetonian's Managing Board (who collaboratively wrote the op-ed) responded with an editor's note of surpassing arrogance:

Now, okay, these are kids. They have room to grow and learn. Most of them will go into fields that have little to do with media or entertainment or journalism. But regardless of what industry they decide to join, they've got to understand that this kind of post facto rationalization, what one might term the Rosie Carolla Defense, never flies.

"We have learned…the response surprised us"? Uh…guys, you couldn't have guessed that some of your readers would be offended? How tone-deaf can you possibly be? Dave Chappelle and Sasha Baron Cohen and other line-pushing comics can be offensive (though arguably, that's in service of a larger message they're trying to convey); they are, however, absolutely aware that in doing so some, if not all, of their viewers will be offended. That's their job as humorists–to get people uncomfortable, so that they have an emotional reactin (and if they learn something, cool–but at least they won't walk out with the same blank sheet of paper they walked in with). Bottom line: Don't write any reality checks you don't have the cojones to cash, comprende?

Sadly, the DP Board failed to even think it through that far–they just assumed that everyone would get it, because, you know, Princetonians are funny. Like Bill Bradley, he's hilarious. And Brooke Shields. My sides hurt.

And then there's the creative un-apology that follows: "Many criticisms of the column, however, do not recognize its purpose…we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous. We embraced racist language in order to strangle it. At its worst, the column was a bad joke; at its best, it provoked serious thought about issues of race, fairness and diversity."

Reading this made my teeth ache. Translation: "You didn't laugh, because you didn't understand/have no sense of humor/are dumb and ugly and should die."

Once more, the Rosie Carolla Defense rears its ugly head. Why is it always the least subtle, least inventive, most humor-challenged "comedians" who accuse other people of not having a sense of funny? Worse yet, these kids didn't just see their essay as thigh-slappin' high-larious. It was also supposed to "provoke serious thought"…good grief.

The editorial continues with some ethnic figleafing (noting that there are several Asians on the senior edit staff, including, presumably, the editor in chief) and then this kicker: "Given our purpose, we are deeply troubled by and reject the allegation of racism."

Highfalutin' SAT words, but again, all in service of the Rosie Carolla Defense. First they apologize for hurting your feelings. Then they imply that if your feelings are hurt, it's because you suck. Then they say their feelings were hurt because you called them on their crap. Then they reject your argument out of hand, because, you know, it's not what they said, it's what they intended that matters.

Or, to put it another way: "I didn't mean to crush your head with this two-by-four. I meant to tickle you with it, even though I swung it with both hands as hard as I could and aimed at your temple. The reason you didn't laugh is because you have a thin skull. And I reject your allegation that you were hurt, because it was not my intent to cause you multiple fractures and brain damage. Finally, by accusing me of hurting you, you hurt my feelings, so really, I'm the victim here–beeyotch!"

The note's conclusion, referring to the board's "regrettable mistake" (e.g., believing that other people had as brilliant a sense of humor as themselves) and requesting a "constructive debate on race and race-related issues" is, like most Rosie Carolla un-apologies, too little and too late:

"We threw a grenade into an outhouse, and now we want to hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' in the flying fecal matter that has erupted. This guy Jian Li has submitted a suit against the college with the Department of Education. People are already pissed off in 15 directions, at all levels of the administration and faculty and student body. Some Asians think Li has a point. Some think he's a cancer. Lots of white people think exactly what the op-ed piece seemed to suggest–that Asians like Li don't belong, because they get good grades but have no soul, or something. And as the Managing Board of the official daily newspaper of the Princeton campus, we've decided that the best way to create an 'opportunity…for constructive debate' is to run this joke op-ed. Tiger pride, yo! Reprazent!"

Am I being too tough on these kids? Remember that, after the Michael Richards N-bomb flap, Malcolm Gladwell, of "Blink" and "Tipping Point" fame, used his blog to outline a framework for determining if a statement is genuinely racist (I smell a book coming on, Mal). He brings it down to three factors:

By these standards, the DP Managing Board gets a pass, right?

I think Gladwell's being reductive, which is, of course, his stock in trade: Simple, universalist answers to highly complex questions.

What he doesn't take into account is that racism isn't solely the province of the speaker; it is shaped by context and colored by the nature of the audience. Assuming that our goal is a civil society, we have a responsibility to understand and acknowledge the reasons why others might see harm in our actions or statements; the harm may not be intended, but if, as the DP Managing Board suggests, flaps such as this offer an opportunity for advancing the dialogue around race and stereotype–well, isn't a dialogue by definition a two-way street? You can't categorically "reject" one party's position, then call for an open debate, can you?

For future Rosie Carollas, here's my personal set of metrics around race and humor–your mileage may vary. Quantifying what's funny and what's offensive is always tricky and sometimes dangerous, as one of my friends pointed out. For instance, most definitions of pornography tend to fall on "you know it when you see it"…not, uh, that I've ever seen it.

But I submit the following as thought starters, if not necessarily rules of engagement–at the least, these are things people should consider before busting out with a questionable and potentially inflammatory statement:

By these standards, where does the DP's "joke op-ed" stand?

As the puppets in Avenue Q say, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." But if you're smart and you put a foot in it, you admit it, you apologize, you learn something, you move on–you don't jump on a high horse and accuse others of being dense.

If you're not smart, and apparently there's a lot of dumb floating around on Ivy League campuses, you do the Rosie Carolla thing, and turn a tempest in a teapot into Katrina 2.0.