Gettin’ “iggy” with it

In a commentary written called “Mom doesn’t work here,” a friend, Melissa Knowles, asserted that SMU students had no manners – the littering and disrespect of university employees was “iggin” her. While the intent was good, the message would have been communicated much more clearly and effectively if a section had been omitted.

In the commentary, Knowles stated that her “servant” at home, Ayeta, was someone she respected. “The fact that I’ve take the time to even learn her name, and tried so hard to speak only Spanish in her presence means a lot to her.”

Let me be the first to say that I think Ayeta would be absolutely flattered that someone with enough money to hire her would actually want to know her name. Woooooow. And a student who has a servant wants people to clean up after themselves.

How far have we come as students when learning a “servant’s” name is no longer mandatory, but an act of kindness? I’m sure that Ayeta would be absolutely fine being called “servant” or “slave” or “lower class citizen who my daddy hired to clean my room while I’m away at SMU spending his money and becoming an elitist.” The fact that she can still refers to her servant as a servant means that while her message had good intent, the mental evolution it takes to successfully arrive at it has not been completed.

She speaks Spanish to her. Assuming this woman speaks some English, her effort to thrive in this environment culturally, socially, and linguistically is undermined by a 20 year-old trying to learn her language just to communicate. Why not learn the languages together?

When the boss’ daughter has to speak Spanish, is this a stage in the growth of a relationship? We must question what matters in a relationship that features the optional name game.

I have never seen a commentary in which someone went so far out of their way (and off of their topic) to state their economic level in the world. There was no other reason to mention a “servant” than to make a class distinction. I am not quite sure if this was because she wanted to relate to SMU’s affluent community by saying “I’m one of you, too, so this is coming from a peer within your social class.” This “inside looking around” philosophy is something that I have seen several students try to accomplish in order to give their argument validity, most recently in Knowles’ article and Daniel Whittle’s argument against a town hall meeting that he misunderstood.

I wish students would stop trying to prove that they are a part of the community they are criticizing, affluent or minority, before actually delivering the criticism. It made me stop and wonder, did she use to word “iggin'” to relate to me? I’m an African-American male from a city that has a dangerous reputation. I wouldn’t know what “aggravating, annoying” means, so she had to use “iggin'” to relate to me. Besides, it was in an R&B song, and if you want to relate to an inner-city black male, quote a song, right?

I have a hard time believing that the person who has a servant could have come from a place where “iggin” is a part of everyday vocabulary. And should they have been fortunate enough to start their life in the inner city and watch their family become more affluent, they would not be audacious enough to act as if learning a service worker’s name is a favor to that person. If I’ve said too much, I apologize for “iggin” you. I’ll try not to exasperate, rile, perturb, infuriate, or enrage (i.e. piss off) the SMU community and its spokespersons.