Yesterday I posted about the fact that a student of the University of Pennsylvania dressed up as a suicide bomber and attended a halloween party given by the President of that same university. Not only did she allow the student to remain but she took a picture with him:
Now she has apologized, but for the wrong thing: (h/t Michelle Malkin)
Each year, the president hosts a Halloween party for Penn students. More than 700 students attend. They all crowd around to have their picture taken with me in costume. This year, one student who had a toy gun in hand had his picture taken with me before it was obvious to me that he was dressed as a suicide bomber. He posted the photo on a website and it was picked up on several other websites.
The costume is clearly offensive and I was offended by it. As soon as I realized what his costume was, I refused to take any more pictures with him, as he requested. The student had the right to wear the costume just as I, and others, have a right to criticize his wearing of it.
Lets disregard that she may not be totally honest here since how in the world could someone not immediately recognize that this guy was wearing a vest of dynamite? I don’t think it’s plausible but lets give her the benefit of the doubt. The bigger question, and the one in which a apology is not only appropiate but should be demanded is that she allowed the kid to stay.
Once you recognize someone dressed in this offensive outfit he should have been immediately escorted out. That did not happen.
Listen, I hate the PC culture as much as the next guy, but give me a break. I would not fault someone for being offended by someone dressed as a KKK member, nor a Hitler. But there are subjects where making fun of that history is just not appropiate. Now of course it’s a free country but the University of Pennsylvania is a private college and can regulate the clothing that is appropiate. A see through top on a female would most definately be frowned upon, but this costume was not?
Winifred Myers (whom Michelle Malkin names as the person who broke the story) gives a few more examples in which people would be offended:
Had Mr. Saadi, or anyone else, shown up dressed in as Hitler, Pol Pot, David Duke wearing his Klan garb, Bull Conner, Sirhan Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth, a slave trader with a whip, a rapist, or any such person, he would have been identified immediately as representing someone, and perhaps some force, that is evil. Neither Ms. Gutmann nor anyone else would have objected to having him barred from her home and party; indeed, to have failed to act in such a way would have invited opprobrium.
Not only did she not demand that this kid leave but she allowed someone dressed as a pedophile to remain also:
Some more infamous figures were also in attendance.
There was, for instance, an impersonator of Scott Ward, the ex-Wharton professor who is awaiting trial for importing child pornography earlier this year. The costume was complete with a fake boy whose head was at the level of the impersonator’s crotch.
So let me get this straight. She allowed a suicide bomber AND a pedophile complete with a fake victim attached to remain at her party…..
This my friends is the face of our liberal ivy league colleges.
Other’s Blogging:
Ditto again Kurt, and I’m confused on this issue, is it not very illegal to walk around with even simulated explosives? Just try walking into a local Cop-Shop dressed like that! Or am I forgetting that the ACLU has already ruled in favor of this behavior…Silly me!!!
Oh, I agree Allen. The thing I was pointing out was that there was no outrage nor class shown by the head of this private college. Instead she took pictures with him. I really do not believe she would have if he was dressed as a KKK member, but she thinks it is ok with a suicide bomber.
That is the face of the left in today’s America. It’s all one big joke, this war on terrorism.