Ever heard a comment so off-base it lights up social media in minutes? That’s what happened when Joe Bullard made a remark about the Honeybeez that few saw coming—and many condemned. Let’s break down exactly what he said, why it caused such backlash, and what it tells us about words, respect, and accountability.
Who Are the Honeybeez?
Before diving into the controversy, it’s worth knowing who the Honeybeez are:
-
The Honeybeez are a plus-size dance team that performs with the Alabama State University Mighty Marching Hornets.
-
Founded in 2004, they promote body positivity, representation, and excellence in performance.
-
They’ve become a celebrated part of HBCU culture, applauded for their courage, skill, and presence.
-
Their mission is to show that talent, discipline, and style aren’t defined by size.
That’s why comments about them carry more weight than most people realize.
What Did Joe Bullard Say About the Honeybeez?
During a halftime football game between Florida A&M University and Alabama State University, announcer Joe Bullard referred to the Honeybeez as the “new face of Ozempic.”
Ozempic is a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes, but in recent years it’s been widely discussed because of its use for weight loss. By linking the dancers to the drug, the remark was seen as a jab at their bodies rather than recognition of their talent.
Bullard later said he meant it as lighthearted banter, part of a tradition of playful commentary in HBCU band culture. But for many, that explanation didn’t lessen the sting.
Why Did His Words Spark Backlash?
1. Public Body Shaming
The remark was heard by thousands, turning a spotlight on the dancers’ bodies in a way that felt derogatory.
2. Conflict With Their Mission
The Honeybeez stand for body positivity. Framing them around a weight-loss drug clashed directly with that message.
3. Respect and Representation
As a well-known announcer, Bullard holds authority. His words carry influence, especially in spaces celebrating Black culture and tradition.
4. Impact Over Intent
Even if the comment was meant as a joke, the effect was harmful—highlighting that intention doesn’t always equal outcome.
What Happened Next?
-
Immediate backlash: Students, alumni, and fans criticized the remark as disrespectful.
-
Institutional response:
-
Florida A&M’s president issued an apology.
-
Alabama State’s president called the comment “absolutely unacceptable.”
-
-
Bullard’s apology: He admitted his words crossed a line, apologized to the Honeybeez and both universities, and said his intent was never to belittle.
-
Consequences:
-
The Southwestern Athletic Conference fined FAMU $10,000.
-
Bullard was suspended for two games.
-
The fallout showed how seriously schools and fans take respect for their performers.
Was It Just Banter or a Boundary Crossed?
Some argue Bullard’s comment was part of long-standing game-day banter between rival schools. To them, it was just a joke.
Others counter that humor stops being playful when it reinforces stereotypes or publicly shames people for their bodies. In this case, critics felt a line was crossed, especially because the Honeybeez are symbols of representation and resilience.
The lesson? Context matters—and so does care with words.
What We Can Learn From This Incident
-
Words matter: Even quick remarks can shape perception.
-
Tradition isn’t a free pass: “Banter” still has boundaries.
-
Representation is powerful: The Honeybeez deserve to be celebrated, not mocked.
-
Accountability counts: Apologies and consequences show that respect is non-negotiable.
Personal Insight
I’ve made jokes in the past that landed flat—and the silence afterward taught me more than the laughter ever could. This story reminded me that public comments hit differently, and sometimes a laugh isn’t worth the harm it causes.
Conclusion
In short: Joe Bullard called the Honeybeez “the new face of Ozempic,” sparking outrage, an apology, a fine, and a suspension. The incident highlights how humor can backfire when it targets identity or body image. What do you think—was this just a joke gone wrong, or a boundary that should never have been tested?