Texas A&M students started holding “Draggieland” (“drag” mixed with “Aggieland,” get it?) at the campus theater complex in 2020. Five years later, however, the tradition was slapped down as the school’s Board of Regents voted to ban all drag events on the 11 Texas A&M campuses.The board’s resolution reads in part,
“The board finds that it is inconsistent with the system’s mission and core values of its universities, including the value of respect for others, to allow special event venues of the universities to be used for drag shows [which are] offensive [and] likely to create or contribute to a hostile environment for women.”
I’d guess a pre-law student with a closed head injury could correctly explain what’s wrong with that silliness, but luckily the student body at Texas A&M will have a better champion than that, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, aka FIRE. FIRE moved in to fill the breach when the ACLU decided to be woke rather than defend free speech and expression regardless of which side of the partisan divide was attacking them, and this low-hanging fruitcake edict prompted the organization to file a federal lawsuit. It backs the Queer Empowerment Council, a coalition of student organizations at Texas A&M University-College Station and the organizers of the fifth annual “Draggieland” event that was scheduled to be held on campus on March 27, and aims at blocking the policy as a clear violation of the First Amendment. Which it is. FIRE asked a court in the Southern District of Texas to halt Texas A&M officials from enforcing the ban.
“Public universities can’t shut down student expression simply because the administration doesn’t like the ‘ideology’ or finds the expression ‘demeaning,’” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “That’s true not only of drag performances, but also religion, COVID, race, politics, and countless other topics where campus officials are too often eager to silence dissent.”
Yup. I am truly amazed that any university would try this stunt in 2025. “Offensive” is no standard since it is subjective. Cross-dressing and drag shows have such a long and varied place in popular culture that trying to call them demeaning to women at this late date is mighty lame (my mother laughed at the Monty Python’s drag gags harder than my father, who disliked them after the cognitive dissonance scale did its work using drag-fan Milton Berle, whom Dad found spectacularly unfunny in or out of women’s clothes.)
FIRE pointed out, admirably without adding “Duh!,” that “the First Amendment squarely protects speech that offends and even angers others. And in all cases, it prevents campus officials from silencing speech because they disagree with the “ideology.” As a taxpayer-funded university system, Texas A&M campuses cannot treat some student events differently simply because they dislike the view being expressed…if the First Amendment means anything, it’s that the government can’t silence ideologies they don’t like — real or perceived….In order to fit the definition of harassment the Supreme Court has established, speech must be “objectively offensive” AND “severe” AND “pervasive.” A once-a-year drag show in an enclosed theatre that requires a ticket to enter doesn’t even come close to satisfying those strict conditions.”
The school couldn’t ban cross dressing by students on the campus either, which is farther along the slippery slope. Would a female student wearing a tux and black tie be subject to a related ban? How could the school think it could get away with this?
Depressingly, FIRE received massive backlash from its mailing list when it announced the lawsuit. “WHOA a lot of you hated our last email!” read the follow up today that landed in my inbox. “We heard from a lot of you — from good faith disagreements to… well… somewhat less charitable responses. Hundreds unsubscribed. All of this is their right. But we’ll still be here. Fighting like hell when anyone’s speech is threatened. We’re glad to have principled subscribers like you with us, fighting censorship regardless of where it comes from. Our non-partisan defense of Americans’ free speech rights means we can tell you about five cases defending speech that you will love, and another five defending speech you will hate. You’re not going to love the expression of every person we defend — but we hope you’re as devoted to the underlying principles as we are. That’s how we do this work right.”
Bingo. What a shame that the ACLU didn’t see its ethical and legal mission so clearly.
___________________
WordPress’s AI thinks this story should be tagged “Palestine.”
Ethics Alarms 
Well I guess nobody is perfect, not even Texas A&M.
Bonus points for the SLIH reference!
I’m afraid I don’t get it. What’s the reference?
It’s the last line of the movie Some Like It Hot, which is the source of the image at the top of the article. Two male musicians disguise themselves as women to avoid being killed as witnesses to a mob hit. Hijinks ensue.
At the end of the film, the two male protagonists (pictured) are escaping on a speedboat with one female love interest (of the one on the left, if I remember correctly) and one rich old man who owns the boat and who is infatuated with the one on the right, who is still disguised as a woman (and who is decidedly heterosexual).
After trying to dissuade the rich man from his nonchalant but steadfast affection by claiming a number of flaws, which the rich man takes in stride, the one on the right finally takes off his disguise and admits to being a man. The rich man shrugs and responds, “Nobody’s perfect.”
Thank you, EC. The character who delivers the line, Osgood, is played by Joey Brown, a major comedy star in the 30s and 40s, famous for his big mouth, bugger even than Julia Roberts’. “Nobody’s perfect!” depending on the poll, regularly ranks somewhere in the top ten most memorable final lines in movies, right up there with ““Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”
Thanks, I’ve seen the movie, and I remember the scene in question, I just didn’t connect it with the quote.
And the difference between blackface and drag would be?
… Blackface …
I hang my head in shame, and shall forthwith report to the punishment booth.
None at all. The school couldn’t outlaw blackface on stage either…on campus, by individuals, it would be a closer call.
My theater company had a blackface minstrel number in one production. Never heard a peep of complaint from anyone.
No one would survive Black minstrelsy at any campus, or anywhere else for that matter, and without a peep from FIRE.
Yet female minstrelsy is mighty fine.
The phrase “distinction without difference” comes to mind.
It does seem inconsistent on its… um, face… but there is actually an important factor that makes people willing to accept drag and less willing to accept makeup to appear as other ethnicities. It took me a while to figure it out some time ago, but with a toolbox of foundational concepts it’s much easier to break it down.
When someone performs in drag, people generally trust that the performer and the audience are not drawing generalizations from the performance to all women. The performance is supposed to represent an individual or an archetype, but not an entire gender. Drag shows in particular are generally understood to be unrealistic as representations of human females.
By contrast, there is not yet sufficient trust established that a person affecting a specific ethnicity isn’t making a statement about all people of that ethnicity, or that some people wouldn’t make generalizations from the performance even if they weren’t intended by the performers.
Part of the reason for this is simple math. The average human may not interact all that much with humans of other ethnicities, but in comparison the average human male will interact with many human females. Humans have much more opportunity to be proven wrong in their assumptions about humans of other genders than in their assumptions about other ethnicities. Drag shows are less likely to spread harmful generalizations about women because women in real life have plenty of opportunities to refute those generalizations (as draining as I am informed it is) and to build up their own reputations. Of course, even that only really took off with the 20th century feminist movement, but that just underscores the point of how hard it is for a human demographic to build a reputation secure enough to shrug off caricatures.
Does that make sense?
That’s a pretty good analysis. I felt like there was a difference between drag and blackface but couldn’t put my finger on why.
I am morbidly curious if there are any existing satires of white people. The closest I can think of are the Malibu Rum commercials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-HZ7qiR0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OC4sef9964
it very much does.
It’s also consistent with a more acceptable imitation of a majority ethnicity, such as the Wayans Brothers White Chicks, or Eddy Murphy’s whiteface SNL skit.
I’d forgotten about those! Haven’t watched “White Chicks”, but I just rewatched “White Like Me” and it was funnier than I remember!
I have to think about whether that makes sense.
I just rewatched “Some Like It Hot” this night as I was unable to resist, and I am sure that there are people that will have their panties in a twist about this movie as some people will undoubtedly say that it perpetuates harmful stereotypes about people who are non-binary. Hollywood and Netflix definitively prefer to play it woke and safe, with movies like Emilia Perez.
Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier used blackface for their roles in Othello. How does that perpetuates harmful stereotypes? Or should we cancel Othello too? Or perhaps Shakespeare?
So the basic question is, why should we have any morals test on movies and theater productions, besides perhaps a rating system?
The movie industry should simply make movies that people enjoy, and are hopefully successful at the box office. If some people think they cannot enjoy a movie because of moral / ethical issues then they should simply not watch. Please let the powers that be keep their moral hang-ups out of everybody’s hair.
Woke ideology and Comstockery can only lead to productions that are less enjoyable.
Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier used blackface for their roles in Othello. How does that perpetuates harmful stereotypes? Or should we cancel Othello too? Or perhaps Shakespeare?
Or Bill Murray in Trading Places.
“Or Bill Murray in Trading Places.”
Bill Murray was in Trading Places?
PWS
He meant Dan Ackroyd.
Dan Aykroyd.
Cue face palm.
Extradimensional Cephalopod: When someone performs in drag, people generally trust that the performer and the audience are not drawing generalizations from the performance to all women. The performance is supposed to represent an individual or an archetype, but not an entire gender. Drag shows in particular are generally understood to be unrealistic as representations of human females.
I used “minstrelsy” advisedly.
Drag exaggerates female-coded characteristics. Dylan Mulvaney is the perfect example — he, without a hint of irony, amplifies the most female coded stereotypes. By definition, his presentation is that of an entire gender. It doesn’t make sense otherwise.
Blackface, when performed as Step-n-Fetchit, is in the same spirit.
The difference is that totally benign, heck, admiring, instances of Blackface are pilloried — think of a woman who goes to a Halloween party dressed as Aretha Franklin, while people are forced to tolerate an ersatz woman wearing giant prosthetic breasts.
Drag shows are less likely to spread harmful generalizations about women …
Full disclosure, I have never been to a drag show, nor even seen a second’s worth of Ru Paul’s Drag Race (I had to do some googlerizing just to get the name of the show).
That said, I’ll bet drag shows amplify female sexuality, which could be generalized as the most important attribute of women.
Your comment makes sense; however, I think it fails to recognize that the issue here isn’t drag, or blackface, it is minstrelsy.
Which is where Jack gets it wrong. As a free speech matter, it is impermissible to prohibit drag. How is that wrong? Because, as a free speech matter, de facto and de jure restrictions must be viewpoint neutral. Since Blackface in any form, never mind minstrelsy, is beyond the pale at Texas A&M, then all minstrelsy must be beyond the pale. Can’t have it both ways.
Rachel Dolezall. Dylan Mulvaney. Compare and contrast.
Moi? Wrong?
Not this time. Blackface can’t be made illegal, just like “nigger” can’t be made illegal. Schools that have tried to punish profs for using the word in a neutral manner, as in discussing “Hucklenerry Finn” or courts cases have failed. And, like drag, blackface can be used in a positive manner. (Here’s the post about that. It got EA banned on Facebook.)
If a black student can go to a campus Halloween Party as Abe Lincoln, and he can, then a white student can go as Frederick Douglass.
Totally agreed, Jack.
But to amplify jeffguinn‘s point, would FIRE jump in to defend a group who desired to put on shows that included blackface? Presumably TAMU would ban such productions on campus.
I’d like to believe FIRE would sue, (full disclosure: I am a FIRE supporter) but they are human after all. I wonder if that might be a bridge too far for even them.
The ACLU is useless. It has been completely confiscated by the DEI and TDS afflicted, censorious Left.
That would be, for FIRE, the equivalent of the ACLU’s Skokie test.
Indeed.
this case is akin to ACLU’s Skokie case. FIRE knows its mission the way the ACLU used to.
-Jut
Yes, and I am sure that the ACLU took a lot of flak over that as well.
FIRE is one of the few organizations that I support monetarily, and while I don’t agree with all the cases they take that is actually a good thing. It enhances their credibility — one cannot simply assert they are just a right wing organization.
That many people view FIRE as right leaning may have more to do with the fact that many more of the efforts to censor and suppress speech are coming from the left. Our ox is the one being gored. But I would like to believe that FIRE believes that All Ox Gore Matters.
Besides, I’ve never been a big fan of A&M (except when they play UT). On the other hand, the Aggie War Hymn is a fantastic song.
Ive always associatee Texas A& M with toxic masculinity, they do have a corps of cadets. However, i enjoyed the drag perfermaces when lived in SF furingthe 70’s when I lived aorund the corner from the Drag Theaters.. I liked Some like it Hot, Mrs Doubtfire, and the drag scenes in South Pacific and Stalag 17.
Don’t forget Gene Hackman in “The Bird Cage.”
The Birdcage is a highfreakin’larious movie, and one I’ll jump into whenever I see it on….and I’ll never listen to Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family” without envisioning Hackman prancing along as a platinum blond.
PWS
Moi? Wrong?
Not this time. Blackface can’t be made illegal, just like “nigger” can’t be made illegal.
We need to keep clear what’s in play here. A&M isn’t making Drag illegal, it is banning on campus Drag events. Blackface and Drag are conduct, not speech. Of course, in many cases conduct is tantamount to speech, but this doesn’t seem one of them.
Also, the other thing to keep in mind is Blackface or Drag is performed as minstrelsy. I doubt many Drag shows are in homage to Marie Curie, for instance. Rather, they are invariably this, from the local CBS affiliate’s story.
How does A&M treat blackface? Rule 31.
31.3 In some instances offensive conduct might not be severe and pervasive and objectively offensive to rise to the level of interfering or limiting an individual’s participation in services, activities or privileges provided by Texas A&M University. Nevertheless, the offensive conduct could still be a violation of the Student Conduct Code or other published rules of the university. As stated in the Student Conduct Code, violations of the Student Conduct Code that are motivated by prejudice toward a person or group because of factors such as race, religion, ethnicity, disability, national origin, age, gender or sexual orientation may be assessed an enhanced sanction.
31.4 The offensive conduct underlying some incidents might be protected speech, but may still be in contradiction to Texas A&M University’s commitment to civility, diversity, academic freedom, equality of opportunity and the valuing of human dignity. In these instances, constitutional rights will continue to be protected, but University staff will also exercise their right to speak and engage in educational dialogue with those engaged in these types of behavior
While it doesn’t ban Blackface specifically, done as minstrelsy, it would be. The banning of Drag events on campus is no different, just more explicit.
The reason I’m going on about this is the inexplicable difference in the way two kinds of minstrelsy are treated so differently: the typical Drag show vs. a reincarnation of Step-n-Fetchit. Or, similarly how an ersatz-Black such as Rachel Dolezall gets drummed right out of polite society, but ersatz-females such as, well, any of them, aren’t. Never mind that Rachel was far more convincing.
(OT: but the the love of God, it would be nice if WordPress would remember my details and not make me log in Every Damn Time.)
Theater and performance art are assigned the category of pure speech by the Supreme Court, though it took a lot of fighting, lawsuits and films banned in Boston to get it there. By definition, a performance is communication, and communication makes it protected speech.If blackface is deemed bannable because it denigrates blacks, then a play or movie that portrays blacks in an unflattering light would also be ripe for banning. Surely the character of Prissy in “Gone With the Wind” is more upsetting to blacks than blackface, or should be.