Urban Outfitters faced intense uproar Monday after they released a blood stained crew-neck sweatshirt with “Kent State University” across the front. How anyone could possibly approve such a negatively poignant design is beyond most people but this is not the first time UO released a controversial article of clothing. Known for pieces with “depression,” “eat less,” and “suicidal” plastered across the front, the company is no stranger to releasing clothes that inspire rage.
The reaction to the Kent State university sweatshirt, however, was stronger than reactions to previous controversial pieces. The Kent State University massacre occurred in 1970, killing four students, three of whom were bystanders to the protest that the Ohio National Guard fired upon. The UO issue trended on Facebook and Twitter, with many users condemning the sweatshirt and swearing off the company. The university lashed out at the release, stating, “’We take great offense to a company using our pain for their publicity and profit.” Urban Outfitters quickly apologized, claiming the piece was from their “sun-faded” collection and had no intention of alluding to the tragic events that occurred at the university. This seems preposterous to some: “With the entire Vietnam generation still alive, how could they not consider that this piece would incite such powerful emotions?” Mary Fernandez, Class of 2015 mother, questioned.
What’s even more chilling is that the sweatshirt was not mass-produced. Urban Outfitters claims it was a “one-of-a-kind” item, which is now being listed as “sold-out” on the site. It’s doubtful only one piece was made; nonetheless, referring to a vintage article as “one-of-a-kind” increases the buzz around its authenticity. Furthermore, Kent State’s school colors do not even include red, reaffirming the likelihood that the piece intended to offend. At the very least, an eBay user bought one and is now selling it there for some 500 dollars.
The company is also not averse to cultural appropriation. The store released a Monopoly inspired “Ghetto-opoly” shirt, which enraged the NAACP, a t-shirt that resembled the prisoner uniform of Holocaust concentration camps, which the Anti-Defamation League condemned, and faced a lawsuit from Navajo Nation for “trademark infringement” on a Navajo-style design.
In a similar vein, clothing company Zara faced heat this summer after releasing a tee shirt that highly resembled the concentration-camp prison uniforms Jews and other prisoners were forced to wear. Similarly, the company apologized and removed the item, but they lost many faithful customers. It was not their first brush with offensive pieces either: the company released a hand bag with Swastikas on it in 2007.
Fashion is a tough industry: designers are constantly looking ahead to beat their competitors and begin new trends. Renouncing morality and respect in exchange for making a statement, as Urban Outfitters strives to do, takes fashion too far. Katy Costikyan, an MHS graduate, makes a point about the reasoning behind releasing such poignant clothing: “[Urban Outfitters] are so desperate for attention from their demographic of impressionable teenagers and young adults that they push the boundaries on what is acceptable in order to appear “edgy” and “cool,” ultimately choosing to exploit serious and important issues for their own personal gain.” In the case of Zara and Urban Outfitters, preying upon controversial issues, mental health disorders, and cultural suffering regress the industry as a whole.
Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/01/navajo-nation-sues-urban-outfitters
Kyle Smith • Sep 18, 2014 at 5:41 pm
Since I enjoy being fashion forward and I’m staying away from flannels this was really shocking to hear!