So am I to understand that there are no absolutes anymore?  That people are free to act in whatever manner they wish?  Should we really care if those who are rude and don't know how to act (for whatever reason) are marginalized?  
   And how is it that expecting people to act in a certain way at certain times and certain occasions (be they ceremonies or not) is "far more oppressive and disturbing than a little light-hearted air-horn tooting?"  It is probably because no one has held the "whoopers and hollerers" to any standard that they continue to act in such a manner.  Would we allow those same people to drive drunk, or beat their womenfolk, or assault YOU because to expect them to not act that way might be "marginalizing" or "oppressing" them?
  It certainly seems to me that we are getting from some (and I stress some) members of society exactly what we are allowing them to get away with:  rudeness and disrespect.  If that's what we want as a university community then so bet it.  If it's not what we want, however, than quick, certain and decisive action should be taken!  
  The choice, it seems is ours.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jarrod Whaley <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:42:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] responsibility and "class"

I think any time we begin discussing notions of what is "acceptable" in social situations, we risk marginalizing entire groups of people. I agree that in a perfect world, we should be able to hear the names of all the students as they make their way across the dais, but to my mind, the not-so-subtly masked elitism and classism driving this debate is FAR more troublesome than noisy celebrations at the ceremony. 

If what is desired is, as you say, a ceremony that meets the needs of "*all*" of our students, then wouldn't the forced silencing of celebrations be just as disrespectful to the demonstrative attendees as the noise may be seen to be to others? Do we REALLY want to serve everyone's interests, or are we talking about couching elitist views in the rhetoric of "respect"?

In response to the claim that society "needs its ceremonies," I would ask just who is supposed to define the term "ceremony." Those of us who claim to understand that this is a situation that calls for "decorum" and "respect" should remember that wishing to determine how the attendees are to conduct themselves is far more oppressive and disturbing than a little light-hearted air-horn tooting.

-->jarrod whaley.
www.oakstreetfilms.com
www.shakingray.com
www.freefilmclub.com