Debate Around Rap’s Music Validity Rooted in Racism

Debates Around Rap Music’s Validity Rooted in Racism

Conservatory second-year Inayah Raheem

Photo by Abe Frato, Photo Editor

Angel Aduwo Opinions Editor

Earlier this month, Oberlin announced that it will be introducing a new minor in African- American Music for both College and Conservatory students. According to Professor Charles Peterson, chair of Oberlin College’s Africana Studies department, this minor will “examine musical forms in the African diaspora through the lenses of theater and dance, history, cultural studies, literature, and philosophy.” While many are excited about this new minor, it’s important to examine the historical condemnation of African-American music styles as well as the larger debate over African-American music in general.

Just about every African-American music style, from jazz to blues to hip-hop, has been criticized and politicized by white American society. This is largely due to the fact that these art forms were typically a reaction to and a rejection of the oppression and discrimination faced by the members of the communities that these styles originated with. These critiques were often rooted in racism and a distaste for Black American expression, rather than any real discourse on the music itself.

“The term ‘jazz’ within itself is derogatory. It literally comes from ‘jackass,’” said Conservatory second-year Inayah Raheem. “That’s basically how they referred to Black music, and that’s the reason why it’s called jazz.”

Raheem is referring to a music critic from the 1890s who wrote in The New Orleans Times-Picayune that the music of jazz musician Buddy Bolden sounded “like the braying of a Jack Ass.” The term stuck, even if the sentiments that the term originated with have faded over time.

So the critique of African-American music styles is not new. As a younger but no-less- established music genre, rap faces similar criticism. However, critics of rap take a different approach than those of jazz, blues, or rock, and debate whether rap music should be considered music at all. This debate is not only baseless and reductive, but it is also clearly rooted in the racism that rap seeks to expose and call out.

A common reason why people claim that rap is not music — most notably touted by right-wing political commentator Ben Shapiro — is that rapping alone can’t be considered music, because rapping is just rhythm and music must be more than just rhythm. This is an absurd notion that any student of music worth their stripes can see past.

Conservatory first-year Solomon Leonard expands on the invalidity of this way of thinking.

“Music is not that much different from life,” said Leonard. “Music is just like any art form, whether it’s visual art or film or dance. It’s a reflection of our lives. And the only requirement is that it has to reflect something about reality. I don’t think it comes down to something like, it has to have a melody or it has to have a type of harmony, or something like that. I don’t think that really makes it music.”

Rap rejects the principles imposed by classical music and resists Eurocentric standards of what music should be. It is a style of music that’s accessible to just about anyone, anywhere in the world. It allows for free-form creativity and individuality, and does not have a rigid set of rules one must subscribe to.

“In my opinion, a lot of white people have the inability to think outside of the box of what they have considered music,” Raheem said. “It’s [a] very common notion in Conservatory settings and classical music settings. I think people have created this strict kind of structure in their mind and they think that anything that goes outside of that can’t be considered music.”

At the heart of rap music is a call to end racial injustice. While older white generations would prefer to disregard rap music altogether, younger white generations love to listen to rap and hip-hop but disregard the genres’ roots and the principles of its original creators.

“Rap is being used commercially like any other genre [of] music, but also it’s just weird that people like to capitalize off of Black things and don’t do anything about what the people who created rap music stood for,” said College second-year and guitarist Dee Pegues.

In the end, it comes down to a lack of respect for African-American culture. When we say things like, “Don’t say the n-word,” or, “Don’t use AAVE,” or, “Don’t wear black protective hairstyles,” it’s all ignored. This is due to the fact that white people, but also non-Black people in general, don’t want to see African Americans as having their own distinct culture. If they do see it, they don’t consider it to be worthy of respect.

If there’s one thing white people hate, it’s competition. If we consider rap music to be music, then we must question the validity of the claim that classical music and other Eurocentric art forms are superior. If we consider Black Americans as having their own distinct culture and identity, then we must question why we believe Black people in America are so undeserving of respect, and deserving of persecution and abuse. If white people have to view rap music as “real music,” they will be forced to question the cultural superiority they have comfortably and securely maintained for generations. They will have to compete with other extraordinarily talented musicians who didn’t “count” in the past. All of their insecurity and resistance to change cannot alter the fact that rap music is music, end of discussion.

College COVID-19 Guidelines Unnecessary, Ineffective

Walter Moak

Almost two years ago, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic a “public health crisis.” However, in the time since the original outbreak, our country has significantly improved its resources to deal with this pandemic. Almost 65 percent of Americans are now inoculated with highly effective vaccines. Rapid tests are provided free of charge by the federal government. Masks are readily available. Omicron, the dominant and most viral strain, “causes less severe disease than infection with prior variants,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Oberlin’s COVID-19 policies have failed to reflect these improvements. Throughout the current academic year, the College has imposed excessive restrictions at a cost to students. These policies do not effectively prevent disease, but rather serve to promote Oberlin’s image of social responsibility. As the spring semester begins, Oberlin should be prioritizing students’ education over positive publicity and minimizing restrictions for the rest of the year.

Oberlin College’s series of misguided policies began with the fall semester’s outdoor mask mandate. The CDC has maintained since last summer that “people do not need to wear masks when outdoors.” According to an August 2021 analysis, COVID-19’s outdoor transmission rate is likely less than 1 percent. However, on Sept. 27, days before the fall semester began, President Carmen Twillie Ambar stated that she wished “to go above and beyond the CDC guidelines.” Given that outdoor masking has little public health benefit, the policy’s apparent purpose was to support the College’s image as a socially responsible institution.

On Dec. 23, Oberlin issued another illogical restriction: a shift to solely grab-and-go dining. Eating inside dining halls does pose transmission risks. The College, however, did not prohibit indoor dining elsewhere; students currently eat meals in the Science Center, Wilder Hall, and other common spaces. At the time, President Ambar asked students to “eat meals in their residences,” but that policy is neither listed on the ObieSafe website nor enforced on campus. As such, Oberlin’s grab-and-go policy merely redistributes transmission risk on campus. Like outdoor masking, however, it is a visible policy the College can reference to support its reputation.

Most recently, Oberlin planned to move all classes online for the first week of the semester. If not for the College’s own communication failures, that likely would have been the case. According to the College’s Feb. 9 announcement, virtual classes would have “allowed for the completion of arrival testing before starting in-person classes.” The College’s desire to test returning students was logical, but their plan for virtual classes had several flaws. For one, it gave students no reason to return before the beginning of in-person classes. Many students would have just stayed home an extra week and missed the testing window anyway. In addition, the online-only plan would have applied to students indiscriminately. Students, such as athletes who had been on campus for Winter Term, had already been subjected to rigorous weekly testing, making further testing redundant and bothersome.

However, it was not for these reasons that Oberlin reversed course. Apparently, some faculty only learned of the College’s plan when students did — just a week before classes started. In the policy reversal announcement of Feb. 16, ObieSafe recognized “concern about the timing of the announcement and its impact on academic plans.” The proposed plan resulted in some remote classes as professors who had already altered their plan for their first week were unwilling to modify it again.

It seems that the reason for restrictions such as outdoor masking and grab-and-go dining is that Oberlin sees COVID-19 policy as a way to bolster its brand as a progressive school. Oberlin prides itself on having admitted Black and female students since the 1830s and wishes to continue its legacy of progressiveness today.

However, stringent restrictions are not the way to achieve this. In 2022, the College isn’t saving lives by stopping students from eating in dining halls. Oberlin’s restrictions create negligible social benefits and only serve to contrast with looser policies adopted by conservative institutions. Presumably, the College expects that its posturing will attract progressive-minded students and their tuition.

The College is wrong to prioritize its image over current students’ experiences. Not only is this plan self-serving, but it is also ineffective. Many progressives are also tired of interminable virus restrictions: San Francisco voters recently ousted three school board members over prolonged school closures. The progressive students Oberlin hopes to attract are likely equally weary.

It’s true that Oberlin has pursued some sensible policies such as the vaccine mandate. The College should realize, however, that performative restrictions only squander students’ patience and weaken compliance with more appropriate measures.

It’s time for Oberlin to respond to COVID-19 as the annoyance it is in 2022, not the crisis it was in 2020. The College should commit to in-person classes for the rest of the semester. The College should reopen communal eating spaces in dining halls. If cases continue their rapid decline, the College should lift the indoor mask mandate before the academic year’s end.