I’m not sure whether to be disappointed or infuriated by Immortal Technique’s recent appearances at Wesleyan and the uncritical Argus articles that followed. I, too, have a difficult time criticizing someone who shares my political values on the prison industrial complex, fair trade, immigration, and a multitude of other issues that Immortal Technique spoke of eloquently last Friday. But where was his articulate answer when a woman in the audience asked him about the use of “bitch” and other slurs that are degrading to women in his music?

What did Emily Greenhouse, Andrea Dominik, and other individuals in the audience feel about participating in a large crowd of Wes students cheering for Tech as he rhymed about “bitches,” “sluts,” “whores,” and “faggots?” [Greenhouse covered Immortal Technique’s pre-concert lecture for the News section of the Argus; Dominick reviewed the concert for Arts]. What about the way he referred to himself as “Captain Save-a-ho” (the ho being the U.S.) in a common colonial depiction of the nation as a passive, powerless female to be acted upon by men? Why are we so quick to criticize these things within the classroom and yet reluctant to point out flaws in the people we respect?

There is an argument that Tech was raised on hip hop culture and therefore uses its common language, but this in my mind is a poor excuse. I am tired of men who consider themselves revolutionary because they battle racial oppression reinforcing a system of gender hierarchy that disempowers women, including the women of color who they claim to represent. Hip-hop culture is not static. As an activist, Immortal Technique should jump at the chance to positively affect the medium through which he communicates his revolution. Instead, he has chosen to maintain and reinforce the status quo, and those of us who listened and reviewed uncritically have encouraged him.