In December 2019, a Russian figure skater appeared on the ice to the theme from Schindler’s List, Steven Spielberg’s cinematic masterpiece about the Holocaust. The skater’s choice of music might have passed without comment if not for his choice of costume: a striped shirt in the style of a Nazi concentration camp uniform emblazoned with a large, yellow star-of-David.
To complicate matters, the International Skating Union proceeded to nominate the skater for the best costume award of the competition. After the predictable outcry, the ISU responded with a predictable apology, claiming that the judges had meant to nominate the skater for the costume he had worn in his other program.
Contributing to the hasty apology was, presumably, condemnation by the Anti-Defamation League of both the costume and the ISU. CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt issued this statement:
“While we understand the need for skaters to be creative in their choice of costumes, [the skater’s] apparent decision to evoke painful Holocaust imagery as part of his routine was insensitive and offensive.”
We are surprised that the International Skating Union initially posted a picture of this costume as a nominee for ‘costume of the year.’ Yellow Stars of David or other concentration camp imagery have no place in figure skating.”
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons in defense of the skater and his costume choice.
List two or three reasons why the skater was wrong in his choice of costume.
Could the skater have devised a different costume to fit the music?
After thoughtful consideration, what would you have done if you were the skater, or a member of the ISU?
Gray Matters
There is a tendency to overreact to these kinds of stories, which is why Jonathan Greenblatt’s measured response was reassuring. He recognized the offensive costume choice as a lapse of sensitivity rather than an act of malice, while acknowledging that creativity—by definition—tends to challenge accepted norms.
If anything, Mr. Greenblatt may have gone too far in the restraint he showed addressing the ISU, which has far less excuse for being culturally tone-deaf than a 23-year-old Eastern European skater.
We learn the basic principles of social skills from our parents, teachers, and peers. Then, we need to fine-tune those skills largely through trial and error. That’s why 20-year-old Prince Harry recovered his reputation after showing up at a costume party in 2005 sporting the uniform of a Nazi officer. Despite the faux pas, the young royal seems to have grown up nicely into a respectable and respectful adult.
The boundaries between avant-garde and bad taste are fluid and often difficult to define. In a context evoking sorrow, hopelessness, oppression, or evil, an Auschwitz-style uniform might be entirely appropriate. In the festive context of a skating tournament, it shows disrespect for the suffering of millions at the hands of history’s most notorious criminals.
The confusion among many young people—and too many adults—to discern where those boundaries lie is compounded by the recent, first-world phenomenon of “cultural appropriation.” In a bizarre ideological paradox, the same progressive voices that have fought to erase the boundaries between males and females have simultaneously determined that ethnic traditions are sacrosanct and are forbidden to any but their rightful inheritors.
As a result, Caucasian school children have been censured for wearing Asian attire. Safari-themed resorts have been boycotted for violating African cultural integrity. Sports teams have changed their names to avoid offending Native Americans, and a popular Volkswagen television ad was condemned for portraying a white office employee who spoke with a Jamaican accent.
I asked a Jamaican friend what he thought of the ad; he loved it. Personally, anyone who wants to dress up as a chassidic Jew on Halloween may do so with my blessing. And what harm the Kalahari Resorts are doing to people in Africa or of African descent is beyond me.
Somewhere in the middle is the controversy over sports teams branded with Native American names. The argument that these names were given with intent to demean or discriminate seems disingenuous. Why would any team want to be named for a group it did not admire? Rather, names like the Braves, the Chiefs, and the Redskins were chosen presumably to evoke and honor the fighting spirit associated with those indigenous peoples.
According to reports, there is some variance of opinion within the Native American community. Some find the use of their cultural images flattering and complimentary; others find that same use insulting and given to perpetuate cultural stereotypes and discrimination.
Ultimately, it is the opinion of Native Americans alone that matters. However, in a culture that increasingly seeks out malicious intent where clearly none was intended, it’s incumbent upon all groups and individuals to examine their own motives.
Do Native American mascots perpetuate degrading stereotypes and contribute to real psychological pain and societal harm? If so, they should go. But if objections arise primarily from an abstract claim that cultural identity has simply been “misappropriated,” it’s worth examining how far any of us should have to go to protect others from the mere perception of offense.
Ethics depends on value judgments. And the more cloudy our values become, the more difficult it is for us to identify the boundaries of ethical behavior.
As an endnote, some might find a comforting irony to learn that the skater sporting the Holocaust costume finished in last place.