I know I may be touching on politics, but bear with me: Its not what you think.

Recently I received an email through my academic account here at University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point that was addressed to all faculty, staff, and students. This email was sent in response to “troubling incidents” and addresses simply that events have occurred near campus that made some students feel threatened and goes onto explain that the incidents are being looked into with the help of both the police department and protective services. The email also suggests that (and I will only say so much as this article requires) the incidents involved a form of racial harassment.

I am in full support of the any steps that are being taken to investigate these events and prevent further issues. As I would expect from this campus (as I really do love it here), the issues are certainly being looked into thoroughly.

That being said:

One phrase stood out near the beginning of the article—a phrase that (once I thought about it) infuriated me. The email explains that the incidents were brought to the attention of campus leaders by “students of color”. I have no issues with these “students of color”—indeed they should report any concerns they have promptly—, and I am sure the email’s composer had the best of intentions. However, I question whether or not this is an appropriate phrase to use. It seems to suggest that these students are not simply students but specifically “students of color”; after all, wouldn’t the word “students” have sufficed just as well? If the email’s composer is looking to reassure faculty, staff, and students that this is a campus that values diversity and culture, it would certainly help to include these students as what they are—students.

This questionable word in this phrase—“colored”—seems to be worse than actually specifying the race or ethnicity of the individual(s) involved (in any usage of this word, not just in the situation described above) because it suggests any groups that may be referred to by a color or fit under the term “colored” are only that, reducing all groups of people to two categories: "White" and “colored” (because “white” isn’t a color but the absence of color or some crap like that—I don’t know).

Again, I completely agree with the actions being taken, and I understand that this word was used in the email with the best of intentions. At the same time though, we seem to be developing an issue in our country (I’m still trying to avoid political sidings, I swear) where some terms or actions are labeled as “kinder” or “more correct” without anyone really thinking about their implications—but I will stop here for fear of further digression.

I would like to conclude on an idea that I am sure many of us agree with: This whole color-labeling thing is bullsh*t. I am reminded of an idea from one of my favorite Youtube channels called GameGrumps (if you are thinking of searching them for philosophical/ educational reasons, don’t: You’ll be disappointed). It suggested that the terms “white” and “black” (or any color in between for that matter) are very misleading because they are seen as opposites and don’t really work at all when applied to people. They claim instead, we are all just various shades of brown.

As corny as it may seem, there is a lot of truth to this thought. I mean, no one’s skin is jet black and anyone whose skin is snow-white should see a doctor right away. Instead, we are peach or beige or cocoa or sand; we are just slightly different shades of the same color.

Yes, it would still be better to drop all color-labeling whatsoever, but if it is still so necessary that we have labels, we can at least try to shift them to a set that makes people seem unified with variations instead of polar opposite enemies.

I’m not sure if our country is moving toward or against peaceful unity. Either way, we have a long ways to go.