Newsflash: SPW Commentator belongs in the Dogg-hizzle

Mike Abrahamson and all Women’s Studies haters, I’m calling you out.

In the February 4^th edition of the Maroon News, commentator Mike Abrahamson responds to an article written by the Women’s Studies Assistant Heather Dockstader. Her article, featured as a commentary piece in the Maroon News’ January 28^th paper, calls the Colgate community to question its reasoning for potentially bringing Snoop Dogg to campus for Spring Party Weekend. Regardless of Dockstader’s message, Abrahamson’s article reflects an ignorance of the Women’s Studies center and all those who support it through their coursework, careers and lifestyles. The fact that this piece was verified such publicity causes me to fear that the author’s skewed vision of the concentration and those people associated with it is a widespread stance taken throughout the Colgate community.

Dockstader’s article features several valid points. She expresses her concern with funding a Snoop concert on campus, especially in light of the alarming results of the Colgate Campus Life Survey. The numbers on the survey do not lie; Colgate students are generally dissatisfied with conceptions of race, gender roles, sexual harassment and assault issues and the hook-up culture on and off campus. Dockstader’s fearlessly states that by bringing Snoop to campus, we “will feed the systems of prejudice that cast men of color as gangsters and women as sex objects when we proclaim to be fighting these very issues with funds and dedication during the work week.” And she’s right. Snoop’s visit to campus as an entertainer would only perpetuate unresolved issues of race and gender that presently scourge a large percentage of the student body.

Abrahamson seems to blame Dockstader’s article as the impetus for removing Snoop as a potential SPW performer. In fact, neither Dockstader nor her commentary piece had anything to do with this act; once again, Abrahamson’s ignorance has led to his false claims. The title page of February 4^th’s Maroon News cites that the “decision was made due to the security problems with accommodating the large crowd that Snoop would likely attract” (read the article here). Of this decision, Dean of Students Scott Brown said, “it has nothing to do with the type of performer” Snoop is, that is, a misogynistic rapper. The administration decided not to bring Snoop to campus, yet their reasoning is based on worries that drastically differ from Dockstader’s. Snoop will not be entertaining the student body at SPW, and this is not because of his offensive lyrics, or because of his performance status. Instead, Colgate claims that the size of the institution is insufficient for hosting such a big name, as many people would likely travel to see Snoop in concert, and the university would be unable to control a crowd of such magnitude. Abrahamson may want to his facts straight before he decides to publicly expose himself as an idiot and attribute Snoop’s cancellation to Dockstader’s “headache-inducing borefest.”

I completely agree with Dockstader’s point. But I’m also a huge fan of Snoop; I’ve loved him since his early days with Dre. I loudly sing “Gin and Juice” at every chance I get, and recently, I can’t get Snoop’s “Gangsta Luv” out of my head. Am I a misogynist? No. I simply like Snoop’s music (to a point) for its entertainment value. This, I think, is what Abrahamson aims to prove. He finds fault with Dockstader’s article for he finds it insulting that she would pin the Colgate student body as so easily impressionable as to believe Snoop’s misogynistic lyrics. His point is proven by his words, “it’s condescending to think that any free-thinking adult would take to heart an oppressive and antiquated view because they waved their hands in the air while listening to it.” Colgate students can have fun singing and dancing along with Snoop, even if he is bearing insulting messages, for we do not necessarily take them to heart. The music industry, an integral aspect of popular culture, is filled with messages that we as individual consumers are free to interpret on our own terms. This can be a dangerous line to draw, as some listeners take pop icon messages to heart, and truly believe such degrading lyrics as “I got a pocket full of rubbers and my homeboys do too/ So turn off the lights and close the doors/ But (but what) we don't love them hoes.” We think that as informed and intelligent undergrads, we are able to rise above the meaning and simply enjoy the music. As a student body we are not, as Abrahamson puts it, so impressionable so as to let performers such as Snoop, “decide our deepest beliefs.” I believe the university trusts us with this ability. Yet the very act of listening to such messages perpetuates the popularity of those who write, and believe, their lyrics to be true. I realize it, and I’m sure all of us so-called Snoop supporters do too. I don’t love Snoop’s messages; therefore, I shouldn’t sing his lyrics. Yet I do. I like his beats. I try not to read too much into the raunch culture he supports, yet in listening to him, I perpetuate it. Check out the video to Snoop’s latest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MuZfZDVbPI. The video’s style is pretty simple, and far less offensive than most contemporary hip hop music videos. Still, it involves Snoop riding in a car full of women grinding on him in bikinis. Maybe these women just love to dance in bathing suits, but I’m fairly certain that Snoop and his producers aim to expose women as hot objects to be attained. I’m sure that Levy would argue that the women in the video, who may feel empowered being next to naked, are really just bones in the Dogg-house, that is, player’s in the man’s game. And to the Colgate women, who would be dancing to Snop in bathing suits on stage, as they were at Lupe Fiasco last year, Levy would question, “why is this the ‘new feminism’ and not what it looks like: the old objectification?” (81). By buying into the raunch culture that Snoop’s lyrics lay out, the Colgate student body would in turn continue his messages of female objectification, drug use, and ‘gangsta’ identities on campus. Thus I completely understand the contradictions we perpetuate by potentially bringing Snoop to campus.

As one who understands each writer’s piece, I still object to Abrahamson’s commentary for its tone. His article is reflective of the ignorance that pervades this campus involving open discussions of gender and understanding. There is a lack of communication between the Women’s Studies Department, as Abrahamson calls it, “the other Colgate demographic…the ‘Brown Bag Luncheoners,’” and other campus niches, which is a serious problem that must be addressed. Abrahamson likened Dockstader’s article to “ceaseless whining and petition-making.” His continual use of insulting terms to describe this representative of the Women’s Studies center is what I find most objectionable about his article. He associates Dockstader with all things condescending to then pin the entire Women’s Studies institution as “haters” and “perpetual petition-makers.” This stereotyping and grouping is insulting, yet unfortunately also extremely typical for the Colgate community. Little does he know that I myself, now a student of the women’s studies center, love Snoop. He groups with Dockstader all people who “hate fun” and generalizes an entire concentration as people who “only have one gear- incessant bitching.”

Abrahamson makes biased claims against an entire Colgate population solely because he is upset that his favorite rapper was banned by the administration to perform at Spring Party Weekend. Perhaps he is right, that “no one cares about the messages of the performers we bring to campus.” Surely, as well-informed students of the liberal arts, we should. And this is precisely what Dockstader is arguing; that in light of such recent results of the Colgate Campus Climate Survey, we ought to think hard and clear about the type of people we choose to pay (and pay beyond our budget at that) to bring to campus. Perhaps by bringing this issue to light we’ll lessen the ignorance that spurred Abrahamson’s rude article and think more clearly for ourselves the impact of our words and actions.