Backward Thinking

Backward thinking.
This November, California voters will cast their votes on the California Civil Rights Initiative, a referendum which would abolish all public sector affirmative action programs in the state. Angelo Ancheta argues that not only is the referendum ill-conceived and badly timed, but Asian Americans, long cited as affirmative action's first victims, have a lot to lose if CCRI is passed.
California's politics are often compared to the state's seismic activity: Like earthquakes, key elections rock the state every few years, sending out waves that resonate throughout the country. Two years ago, the issue was immigration, and Proposition 187 was the fault line that divided communities by race and ethnicity. This year, the issue is affirmative action, and Proposition 209, the so-called "California Civil Rights Initiative" or CCRI, is splitting the state. And Asian Americans are at the epicenter of the controversy.
Racial politics in California are complex and volatile. In a state where economic growth is uncertain and unemployment exceeds the national average, appeals to intolerance provide a quick fix for more difficult political and social problems. Most of the rhetoric in support of the CCRI is neither subtle nor sophisticated. Supporters argue that we have attained a colorblind society, and that affirmative action means race- and gender-based quotas for the unqualified. White men are victims, and "reverse discrimination" is the major civil rights issue for society to confront. Merit should be the sole measure of success. The solution: Eliminate affirmative action.
Reality betrays the rhetoric. Outside of court orders in which there have been specific findings of past discrimination, quotas are illegal. By definition, affirmative action is designed to help only those who are fully qualified for positions. Reverse discrimination claims are a tiny percentage of the discrimination claims filed in the courts and with government agencies. And "merit" can mean many things, not simply test scores. Depending on how you define merit, you can include or exclude just about anybody you want to.
The real impact of the CCRI on women and minorities would be widespread and devastating. According to the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office, the CCRI would eliminate programs that promote the hiring of women and minorities for state and local government jobs. It would eliminate programs used to promote the awarding of public contracts to business firms owned by women and minorities; some or all voluntary desegregation programs operated by school districts; as well as counseling, tutoring, and financial aid programs used by K-12 school districts, community colleges, the California State University, and the University of California to admit and assist students from underrepresented groups.
Asian Americans have been thrown into the center of the debate in complicated and often inconsistent ways. Some argue that Asian Americans are, like other groups composed largely of recent immigrants, unintended beneficiaries of affirmative action; only African Americans have a moral claim to redress for past discrimination. Because Asian immigrants can benefit from affirmative action, the system is fundamentally flawed and should be abolished. (Of course, the arguments rest on the false assumptions that affirmative action is designed only to redress past discrimination, and, for that matter, that Asian Americans have not suffered either historical or ongoing discrimination.)
Other opponents of affirmative action suggest that Asian Americans form the racial minority group that would benefit most from the passage of the CCRI. Asian Americans are the "model minority" -- the achievers who gain success on the basis of merit, without need for affirmative action. In fact, CCRI supporters not only argue that Asian Americans don't need affirmative action, but that they are hurt by it, particularly in college admissions where affirmative action for other groups prevents qualified Asian American students from gaining entry.
These arguments can be alluring, and many Asian Americans are buying into them. But the arguments are wrong. We've come a long way in the last 30 years, but Asian Americans still encounter discrimination and are still denied access to positions within society's institutions, particularly in spheres of decision-making power and influence. The playing field isn't close to being level. And Asian Americans, like other communities of color and women, need affirmative action to fight the discrimination that continues to plague our society.
Underrepresentation, lack of access, and overt discrimination against Asian Americans persist in all the areas where affirmative action would be dismantled by the CCRI. In public contracting, Asian American businesses confront systemic barriers in competing for government contracts. For example, during the 1980s, Asian American construction firms in San Francisco received less than 1 percent of the city's contracts, and only about 5 percent of the total dollars awarded for the San Francisco Unified School District's contracts, even though Asian American firms made up 20 percent of the available pool. An independent review found that the school district staff employed inconsistent bidding and contract procedures and withheld information from minority contractors. No significant outreach was conducted, and actual contracts were substantially smaller for minority and women contractors. After an affirmative action plan was instituted, Asian American participation increased threefold from 1989 to 1993.
In public employment, Asian Americans are underrepresented in entry-level and upper-level positions in several fields. Although they are over 10 percent of the population in the city of Los Angeles, Asian Americans are only 4.6 percent of the Los Angeles Police Department. In Los Angeles County, where Asian Americans are also over 10 percent of the population, they are only 2.5 percent of the County Sheriff's Office. According to 1993 figures, only 36 of the 1,402 state trial court judge positions were held by Asian Americans. Statewide, Asian Americans comprise only 4.3 percent of full-time teachers at K-12 public schools, even though 11.2 percent of the students are Asian American. According to the bipartisan Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Asian Americans as a group are well educated, but do not receive the higher incomes or promotions that would be expected for their levels of education.
In public education, many Asian American children face language and cultural barriers that inhibit educational achievement at the K-12 level. Many attend inner-city schools where per-pupil expenditures are significantly less than in the suburbs. Even in higher education, where Asian Americans as a whole are well-represented in California's state colleges and universities, underrepresentation persists among groups such as Filipinos, Southeast Asians, and Pacific Islanders.
Meanwhile, the harm that affirmative action imposes on Asian American students is illusory. Under California's Master Plan, all seniors who graduate in the top 12.5 percent of their high school class can attend the University of California; but because applications far exceed places, no one is guaranteed a spot at popular campuses like Berkeley and UCLA. And even if Asian Americans form large percentages of the college student bodies, that doesn't mean that programs for African Americans and Latinos should be eliminated. Their presence enriches the diversity of the state's campuses, and low admissions and retention are still serious problems that will only be made worse by an enactment of the CCRI.
We still have very far to go, but affirmative action has made an immense difference in helping Asian Americans move along the way. Twenty years ago, you could count the number of Asian American officers in the San Francisco Police Department on one hand. Because of affirmative action, there are now close to 300 Asian American officers on the force. In fact, Fred Lau, a highly qualified and respected officer, was elected to be San Francisco's first Asian American police chief earlier this year. Because of affirmative action, the representation of Asian American firefighters on the San Francisco Fire Department grew almost fivefold in 10 years, increasing from 34 in 1985 to 161 in 1995.
Over 13 years ago, affirmative action provided opportunities for myself and other Asian Americans who wanted to join the legal profession. The diversity admissions program at the UCLA School of Law helped get me in the door, but it didn't get me through three years of law school. Affirmative action didn't help me to achieve good grades, make the law review, graduate, or pass the bar examination. But affirmative action gave me that first chance, and I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for such an institution.
Affirmative action is not perfect. But it still opens doors that would otherwise be closed to Asian Americans and other people of color, and society as a whole is better off because of it. At a time when race relations in California and the nation have never been more fragile, we need a civil rights strategy that is inclusive and resolute in its commitment to justice and equal opportunity. Affirmative action is an integral part of that strategy, and defeating the CCRI is the first step in ensuring its success.
Ancheta, Angelo. "Backward Thinking." A. Magazine 30 Nov 1996 79. 03 Nov 2007 .

“Backward Thinking” is an article that addresses the policy of affirmative action in California. Asian Americans are underrepresented in certain job fields and affirmative action has helped in the past to even this out and increase the number of Asian Americans in these jobs so the ratio is closer to that of the real population. However, some people feel that affirmative action is not supposed to help Asian Americans and so the programs should be stopped.

Brodkin mentions affirmative action in “How Jews Became White Folks” in a somewhat similar way. Affirmative action is primarily seen as something to help those of color, often African-American, to have the same opportunities as whites and to even the playing field from past wrong-doings. Both of these articles, however, speak of a form of affirmative action that helps a different group. In Brodkin’s article, she writes of the GI Bill that was, in law, meant to help all former soldiers equally. However, there were certain stipulations that happened when it came to actually granting people the benefits that caused it to turn into a Bill that helped only non-blacks. This included Jews who in the past had not been given the same benefits as whites. This helped Jews to be able to have a better standing in American society because they were able to go to school and get good jobs. They became white. In “Backward Thinking,” affirmative action plans have in the past helped Asian Americans find places in certain jobs that they normally may not have. Asian-Americans are usually considered the model minority and not in need of any help for past wrong-doings so some people believe that it is unfair that they are receiving these special treatments from affirmative action that is not meant to help them. Asian-Americans were the accidental recipients of California’s affirmative action plan and the Jews were the ignored recipients of the G.I. Bill. Both forms of affirmative action did not help the group that is typically thought to receive affirmative action benefits. Asians are now considered the model minority and Jews are considered to be white.

I thought it was interesting to find another article that speaks of affirmative action helping another group besides African-Americans. I think that affirmative action is typically thought of as something to help black people and here are two examples of it helping other minority groups. I also found it interesting from the Ethnic News Watch article that some people feel that Asian-Americans are not worthy of receiving help from affirmative action. I think it is easily forgotten that in the past, America has treated them very poorly as well as African-Americans.

Dr. Suess

Dr. Suess.

This cartoon is an example of the very limited freedoms that non-whites received in America despite what the American ideals seemed to proclaim. Freedom for all was actually limited to a small number of people of a certain color and origin.

This Dr. Suess cartoon shows how certain wordings of things made it seem as though America offered equal rights and opportunities to all but that the real picture was something quite different. Howard Zinn talks about such things in A People’s History of the United States: “Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom.” Not only were blacks denied almost all freedoms for the longest time because they were forced into slavery, but even when slavery was abolished with laws and amendments, their freedoms were still not granted. The United States had built up an enormous and deep running racial prejudice that was not going to go away anytime soon. It was something that would take an unknown, uncountable amount of time for the country to overcome. When the constitution was written guaranteeing the pursuit of life liberty and happiness, it did not mean for everyone. It meant for wealthy, white landowners. This cartoon shows that there is a whole group of people just swept under the rug and forgotten about, not unknowingly but purposefully. In “Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom” Zinn talks about the difficulties blacks faced even after being freed from slavery. He says, “The constitutional amendments were passed, the laws for racial equality were passed, and the black man began to vote and to hold office. But so long as the Negro remained dependent on privileged whites for work, for the necessities of life, his vote could be bought or taken away by threat of force. Thus, laws calling for equal treatment became meaningless”(149). This is an excellent point made by Zinn. These laws that were passed became meaningless, empty words on paper because they were not actually carried out. The white man was still dominant and could force blacks to do what he wanted because blacks needed a way to live and had no choice with no money and no land. They had to support their families somehow. Although blacks were given their freedom on paper the laws were not carried out as they should have been. Even today there is still inequality and black oppression but we still proudly sing our national anthem that proclaims, “Justice for all.”

I was very interested by this cartoon when I came across it for several reasons. I thought it complemented perfectly what Zinn was trying to say about black freedoms in our American society. I had also learned something new about Dr. Suess. He is, of course, well known for his children’s books. I had no idea that he has also done some political cartoons during his career. It was interesting going through all of them and seeing a completely different side to the author. We had often talked about in class the Constitution and amendments for equal freedoms that are supposed to act as laws of our country but had not really discussed what Dr. Suess brings up in his cartoon, certain symbols of America such as the National Anthem.

A Family Tree In Every Gene

A Family Tree in Every Gene
By ARMAND MARIE LEROI

Published: March 14, 2005

ondon — Shortly after last year's tsunami devastated the lands on the Indian Ocean, The Times of India ran an article with this headline: "Tsunami May Have Rendered Threatened Tribes Extinct." The tribes in question were the Onge, Jarawa, Great Andamanese and Sentinelese - all living on the Andaman Islands - and they numbered some 400 people in all. The article, noting that several of the archipelago's islands were low-lying, in the direct path of the wave, and that casualties were expected to be high, said, "Some beads may have just gone missing from the Emerald Necklace of India."
The metaphor is as colorful as it is well intentioned. But what exactly does it mean? After all, in a catastrophe that cost more than 150,000 lives, why should the survival of a few hundred tribal people have any special claim on our attention? There are several possible answers to this question. The people of the Andamans have a unique way of life. True, their material culture does not extend beyond a few simple tools, and their visual art is confined to a few geometrical motifs, but they are hunter-gatherers and so a rarity in the modern world. Linguists, too, find them interesting since they collectively speak three languages seemingly unrelated to any others. But the Times of India took a slightly different tack. These tribes are special, it said, because they are of "Negrito racial stocks" that are "remnants of the oldest human populations of Asia and Australia."
It's an old-fashioned, even Victorian, sentiment. Who speaks of "racial stocks" anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist. If modern anthropologists mention the concept of race, it is invariably only to warn against and dismiss it. Likewise many geneticists. "Race is social concept, not a scientific one," according to Dr. Craig Venter - and he should know, since he was first to sequence the human genome. The idea that human races are only social constructs has been the consensus for at least 30 years.
But now, perhaps, that is about to change. Last fall, the prestigious journal Nature Genetics devoted a large supplement to the question of whether human races exist and, if so, what they mean. The journal did this in part because various American health agencies are making race an important part of their policies to best protect the public - often over the protests of scientists. In the supplement, some two dozen geneticists offered their views. Beneath the jargon, cautious phrases and academic courtesies, one thing was clear: the consensus about social constructs was unraveling. Some even argued that, looked at the right way, genetic data show that races clearly do exist.
The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.
Three decades later, it seems that Dr. Lewontin's facts were correct, and have been abundantly confirmed by ever better techniques of detecting genetic variety. His reasoning, however, was wrong. His error was an elementary one, but such was the appeal of his argument that it was only a couple of years ago that a Cambridge University statistician, A. W. F. Edwards, put his finger on it.
The error is easily illustrated. If one were asked to judge the ancestry of 100 New Yorkers, one could look at the color of their skin. That would do much to single out the Europeans, but little to distinguish the Senegalese from the Solomon Islanders. The same is true for any other feature of our bodies. The shapes of our eyes, noses and skulls; the color of our eyes and our hair; the heaviness, height and hairiness of our bodies are all, individually, poor guides to ancestry.

But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger's face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from - and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.
Genetic variants that aren't written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many - a few hundred - variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.
One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from - or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400 - though prices will certainly fall.
Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.
The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.
Some critics believe that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. I disagree. The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world's more prominent features - the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains - names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.
So, too, it is with the genetic topography of our species. The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race. At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well. Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.
But it is a shorthand that seems to be needed. One of the more painful spectacles of modern science is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between "ethnic groups." Given the problematic, even vicious, history of the word "race," the use of euphemisms is understandable. But it hardly aids understanding, for the term "ethnic group" conflates all the possible ways in which people differ from each other.

Indeed, the recognition that races are real should have several benefits. To begin with, it would remove the disjunction in which the government and public alike defiantly embrace categories that many, perhaps most, scholars and scientists say do not exist.
Second, the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.
Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions - notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups. Here, as so often, the mere prospect of litigation has concentrated minds.
Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.
The argument for the importance of race, however, does not rest purely on utilitarian grounds. There is also an aesthetic factor. We are a physically variable species. Yet for all the triumphs of modern genetics, we know next to nothing about what makes us so. We do not know why some people have prominent rather than flat noses, round rather than pointed skulls, wide rather than narrow faces, straight rather than curly hair. We do not know what makes blue eyes blue.
One way to find out would be to study people of mixed race ancestry. In part, this is because racial differences in looks are the most striking that we see. But there is also a more subtle technical reason. When geneticists map genes, they rely on the fact that they can follow our ancestors' chromosomes as they get passed from one generation to the next, dividing and mixing in unpredictable combinations. That, it turns out, is much easier to do in people whose ancestors came from very different places.
The technique is called admixture mapping. Developed to find the genes responsible for racial differences in inherited disease, it is only just moving from theory to application. But through it, we may be able to write the genetic recipe for the fair hair of a Norwegian, the black-verging-on-purple skin of a Solomon Islander, the flat face of an Inuit, and the curved eyelid of a Han Chinese. We shall no longer gawp ignorantly at the gallery; we shall be able to name the painters.
There is a final reason race matters. It gives us reason - if there were not reason enough already - to value and protect some of the world's most obscure and marginalized people. When the Times of India article referred to the Andaman Islanders as being of ancient Negrito racial stock, the terminology was correct. Negrito is the name given by anthropologists to a people who once lived throughout Southeast Asia. They are very small, very dark, and have peppercorn hair. They look like African pygmies who have wandered away from Congo's jungles to take up life on a tropical isle. But they are not.
The latest genetic data suggest that the Negritos are descended from the first modern humans to have invaded Asia, some 100,000 years ago. In time they were overrun or absorbed by waves of Neolithic agriculturalists, and later nearly wiped out by British, Spanish and Indian colonialists. Now they are confined to the Malay Peninsula, a few islands in the Philippines and the Andamans.
Happily, most of the Andamans' Negritos seem to have survived December's tsunami. The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening. Even so, Negrito populations, wherever they are, are so small, isolated and impoverished that it seems certain that they will eventually disappear.
Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea. They will remain visible in the unusually dark skin of some Indonesians, the unusually curly hair of some Sri Lankans, the unusually slight frames of some Filipinos. But the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, will have disappeared. A human race will have gone extinct, and the human species will be the poorer for it.

Leroi, Armand. "A Family Tree in Every Gene." The New York Times 14 Mar 2005 5 Oct 2007 .

“A Family Tree In Every Gene” suggests that there are scientific differences that prove race does exist in a genealogical sense and is not just a social construct. There seem to be significant differences in genes to create racial boundaries, which can have good outcomes.

The movie Race: The Power of Illusion says that race is socially constructed and that scientific evidence proves that race does not truly exist in a physical sense. It says there are no clear differences in genes among social categories of race. However, the article “A Family Tree In Every Gene” suggests the opposite. It says that when physical characteristics that we use to identify race are put together and the genes are compared, differences can be found to define different categories of people. This could mean that race is not just a social construct, but is also a scientific fact and would exist whether race involved social differences or not. This could be seen as a very bad thing if difference among race does truly exist. This fact could provide people with excuses to behave differently towards people of a different race. This could give people a reason to discriminate against others based on race because they really are different on the inside. However, this could also be not only a good thing, but also a very helpful thing in the medical community. Racial categories have been found to have different chances of contracting certain diseases and react differently to certain medications. If these differences were further studied and more defined and predictable, this could actually help people. Doctors would know what people were more susceptible to certain things and could treat them differently to help them prevent the disease and make sure they take more precautions than would be necessary for people of another race who would not necessarily have as high of a risk for contracting the disease. It could also help with prescribing medications. Doctors would know what medications work on people of a certain race better than another race and could better prescribe patients. It seems, though, that much further studying needs to be done to determine the truth behind racial differences. It had been thought long ago that race was biological and then that was seemingly disproved. Now science may go back to what was originally thought, although definitely not in the same way or to the same extreme.

It makes sense to me that there would be genetic difference among people of seemingly different races as I think it would to most people. If the differences are so obvious to our eyes how is it possible they could be almost nonexistent genetically. There has to be something different in our genes to make a person’s skin color the shade it is and to make their nose and eyes a certain way. And because these characteristics tend to follow our racial patterns socially, it seems as though it would only make sense that the genetics match as well.

Columbia Noose Incident

Columbia Professor: Noose Message 'Very Personal'
Madonna Constantine, the Columbia University professor who found a noose on her office door Tuesday morning, said she felt not only angry but embarrassed when she saw the noose.
"I know I don't really have a reason to be embarrassed about it because this was the work of someone who, you know, is not a secure person at some level, but it felt as though it was directed toward me," Constantine said in an exclusive interview today on "Good Morning America."

"It felt very personal and very degrading," she said.
New York police are treating the incident as a hate crime. They are also investigating whether the noose, first discovered by one of Constantine's colleagues, may have been placed by an angry student or another faculty member as part of an ongoing dispute with Constantine.
Constantine is involved in a lawsuit with another professor at the college, according to court records.
Message for Outspoken Professor?
Constantine, a respected professor at Columbia University Teacher's College, has been outspoken on matters of race, gender and multiculturalism.
The symbolism behind the noose could not be clearer, she said today.
"And I think it … certainly served to reinforce the issue that I'm African-American and I'm very proud of that, and that there's a history of oppression and racism against African-Americans in this country," Constantine said.
This incident is the latest in a growing number of noose incidents in the United States, since the one that punctuated the racially charged controversy in Jena, La.
Constantine, who grew up in Louisiana, said that living in a multicultural society takes work.
"We have to work to get along and understand that our perspective or ideology isn't the only way of thinking or being," she said.
Constantine had harsh words for the perpetrator of the crime at a campus rally Wednesday, saying hanging the noose "reeks of cowardice and fear," and added, "I would like the perpetrator to know I will not be silenced."

The professor praised the campus community for its quick reaction and support.
"The community has been awesome," Constantine said. "[They] have all pulled together, joined together and allowed this really very heinous incident to bring us closer in many respects. That kind of incident could have the affect of polarizing people, but it has not. We have stood together. We've stood strong. I'm really proud of our community."

"Columbia Professor: Noose Message 'Very Personal'." abc News 11 Oct 2007 13 Oct 2007 .

Madonna Constantine, a Columbia University professor, found a noose on her office door the morning of October 9. It is unknown who put it there, but the police are treating the incident as a hate crime.

In Johnson Chapter 6: “What It All Has To Do With Us,” he talks about society seeing racism as being about the individual. People get offended if you call them racist because they feel singled out as having racist thoughts or actions. Johnson discusses the fact that a few individual people with racist ideas did not create today’s society of white privilege and black oppression. It was an entire country following the path of white privilege and black oppression over a long period of time. It still exists today because we, as the majority of society, choose, knowingly and unknowingly, to follow the path of least resistance and allow these practices to continue in various ways. Although Johnson is right that we are all participants but that does not make each individual racist, there are those people out there that fit into such an extreme category such as whoever is responsible for this noose incident. This person does not unknowingly follow a path of least resistance of privilege while oppressing others silently and unthinkingly. This person found the need to make a statement about oppression and that it is a good thing, even that there is not enough oppression in today’s society. This message says that there are still people out there who think that the world was a better place when slavery existed and blacks were unfairly treated. Although, according to Johnson, people need to be made aware of what is going on as far as privilege and oppression are concerned so that society can change paths there are people out in the world that will still follow their own, narrow minded path. It is unknown why this noose appeared on this professor’s door, whether because of an angry student or a faculty member with a grudge, but regardless of why it was there the message says that the ideas of black inferiority are still alive in today’s modern society. Until these ideas are purged from people’s minds, little growth can take place in society and white privilege will remain.

There has been a recent surge in incidents involving the symbol of a noose. I find this appalling. It almost makes it seem as if our society’s progress is going backwards. At the very least, it is not moving forward. That a person could find such a symbol appropriate to use in any way is incomprehensible to me. I find the noose to be a very ugly symbol full of racial hatred and past pains that have been endured. I cannot understand why anyone would want to remind themselves or anyone else of what such times were like and what white people did to African Americans. It is past time for people to look past racial differences and stop using them as a weapon against one another.

Bootcamp Death

Boot camp employees not guilty in boy's death
PANAMA CITY, Florida (AP) -- Eight former boot camp workers were acquitted of manslaughter Friday in the death of a 14-year-old boy who was videotaped being punched and kicked. The scene sparked outrage and changes in the juvenile system, but it took jurors just 90 minutes to decide it was not a crime.

Anger over the verdict was obvious outside the courtroom, where bystanders screamed "murderer" at former guard Henry Dickens as he described his relief at the verdict.
Martin Lee Anderson died a day after being hit and kicked by Dickens and six other guards as a nurse watched, a 30-minute confrontation that drew protests in the state capital and spelled the end of Florida's system of juvenile boot camps.
"I am truly, truly sorry this happened. Myself, I love kids," said Dickens, 60. He added that Anderson "wasn't beaten. Those techniques were taught to us and used for a purpose."
The defendants testified that they followed the rules at a get-tough facility where young offenders often feigned illness to avoid exercise. Their attorneys said that Anderson died not from rough treatment, but from a previously undiagnosed blood disorder.
The boy's mother, Gina Jones, stormed out of the courtroom. "I cannot see my son no more. Everybody see their family members. It's wrong," she screamed.
"You kill a dog, you go to jail," said her lawyer, Benjamin Crump. "You kill a little black boy and nothing happens." He spoke outside court, which is across the street from the now-closed Bay County boot camp.
Anderson's family repeatedly sat through the painful video as it played during testimony. They had long sought a trial, claiming local officials tried to cover up the case. The conservative Florida Panhandle county is surrounded by military bases and residents are known for their respect for law and order. Watch the boy fall to the ground »
The guards, who are white, black and Asian, stood quietly as the judge read the verdicts. The all-white jury was escorted away from the courthouse and did not comment.
Special prosecutor Mark Ober said in a statement he was "extremely disappointed," but added, "In spite of these verdicts, Martin Lee Anderson did not die in vain. This case brought needed attention and reform to our juvenile justice system."
The defendants would have faced up to 30 years in prison had they been convicted of aggravated manslaughter of child. The jury also decided against convicting them of lesser charges, including child neglect and culpable negligence.

By mid-afternoon, about 150 people -- many from nearby Florida A&M University -- were protesting the acquittals outside the state Capitol. They chanted, "No justice. No peace!"
Several black legislators also expressed outrage. Anderson was black; the guards were black, white and Asian. The jury was all white.
"Ninety minutes of deliberation for a child's life, a child who we saw beaten to death on videotape over and over again?" asked Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "Ninety minutes and not guilty. That's un-American. That is racist, discriminatory, bigotry."
Officials from the Department of Justice in Washington and U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Florida announced they were reviewing the state's prosecution. Defense attorneys, however, said they considered a federal civil-rights case to be unlikely.
"With a 90-minute verdict after a three-week trial (in the state case), it would be the same result," said attorney Bob Sombathy, who represents ex-guard Patrick Garrett.
Aside from hitting Anderson, the guards dragged him around the military-style camp's exercise yard and forced him to inhale ammonia capsules in what they said was an attempt to revive him. The nurse stood by watching.
Defense attorneys argued that the guards properly handled what they thought was a juvenile offender faking illness to avoid exercising on his first day in the camp. He was brought there for violating probation for stealing his grandmother's car and trespassing at a school.
The defense said Anderson's death was unavoidable because he had undiagnosed sickle cell trait, a usually harmless blood disorder that can hinder blood cells' ability to carry oxygen during physical stress.
Prosecutors said the eight defendants neglected the boy by neglecting his medical needs after he collapsed while running laps. They said the defendants suffocated Anderson by covering his mouth and forcing him to inhale ammonia.
"You may not hear anything coming out of that video sound-wise, but that video is screaming to you in a loud, clear voice, it is telling you that these defendants killed Martin Lee Anderson," prosecutor Scott Harmon said in his closing argument.
Anderson died January 6, 2006, when he was taken off life support, a day after the altercation. The case quickly grew and shook up the state's boot camp and law enforcement system amid the boy's family alleging a cover-up.
An initial autopsy by Dr. Charles Siebert, the medical examiner for Bay County, found Anderson died of natural causes from sickle cell trait. A second autopsy was ordered and another doctor concluded that the guards suffocated Anderson through their repeated use of ammonia capsules and by covering his mouth.
"I am feeling a little vindicated. People got to see a lot more than what's been publicized in the media," said Siebert, who was widely criticized for his autopsy. He said he was going to celebrate with some of the guards.
Anderson's death led to the resignation of Florida Department of Law Enforcement chief Guy Tunnell, who established the camp when he was Bay County sheriff.
Then-Gov. Jeb Bush had been a strong supporter of the juvenile boot camps, but after Anderson's death he backed the Legislature's move to shut down the system and put more money into a less militaristic program.

Bush appointed Mark Ober, state attorney for Hillsborough County, as special prosecutor in the case. Bush also scolded Tunnell for exchanging e-mails with current Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen, in which he criticized those who questioned the effectiveness of the boot camp concept. He also made light of the protesters in the state capital.
The Legislature agreed to pay Anderson's family $5 million earlier this year to settle civil claims.

Associated Press, "Boot Camp Employees Not Guilty In Boy's Death." CNN.com 12 Oct 2007 20 Oct 2007 .

A 14-year-old black boy died on January 6, 2006, after being beaten and forced to inhale ammonia by the guards of a Florida juvenile boot camp facility where he was staying. The guards claim they thought Martin Anderson was faking sick as a defense for their actions. After 90 minutes of deliberation, an all white jury found the guards and a nurse that watched this all happen, innocent of all charges.

Martin Anderson was assumed to be lying about his illness and this resulted in his death. The guards over worked an already sick person and brought him to his breaking point, until he literally could not take any more. In Johnson Chapter 2: “Privilege, Oppression, and Difference,” Johnson talks about whites receiving the opposite in regards to being trusted. White privilege is evident when Johnson lists some facts about our society: “Whites are less likely than blacks to be arrested; once arrested, they are less likely to be convicted and, once convicted, less likely to go to prison, regardless of the crime or circumstances”(25). This case seems to be a very good example of such. Although there seemed to be good evidence against the defendants, the jury found the guards to be innocent, although some were black. The bigger issue here, however, seems to be the race of the young boy, not the guards. According to Johnson, “Whites can assume that when they go shopping, they’ll be treated as serious customers, not as potential shoplifters or people without the money to make a purchase. When they try to cash a check or use a credit card, they can assume they won’t be hassled for additional identification and will be given the benefit of the doubt”(26). Martin Anderson was by no means given the benefit of the doubt. Even after collapsing after being forced to run laps, he was still not seen as telling the truth about feeling ill. The guards and nurse who watched by, however, were given the benefit of the doubt by the all white jury. The jury, too, saw Anderson as a liar who was faking sick. This could also be because they have in their minds a common stereotype that blacks are lazy and do not want to do work so Anderson was just trying, like other blacks, to get out of work. For some reason, our society has a trust issue with blacks and a huge imbalance of trust as a whole. A black boy dies unjustly and guards are given no punishment. Even if not convicted of murder, the guards should still have been charged with a lesser crime of some sort for a having a boy die on their watch, but they were not.

I do not understand how a jury could not convict these people, or the fact that no other charges were brought against them. I am appalled for the loss of this young life to the world that went unjustified. It saddens me that such things are still taking place. A 14-year-old with his whole life ahead of him is gone forever, he has no more opportunities, no more chances, but those that are responsible for his death are being given a second chance and remain unpunished.

South Park: "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson"

http://www.southparkstuff.com/images/stories/epiimgs/epi1101/epi1101img08.jpg

In the South Park episode, “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” that aired on Comedy Central on March 7 this year, the n-word was used excessively. At the beginning of an episode, Randy Marsh, Stan’s father, is on the Wheel Of Fortune and says the n-word on live television. He becomes known as the “nigger-guy” and is called this throughout the entire episode. Stan’s black friend Token is mad at Stan for what his father said and Stan spends the episode trying to understand why and get Token to forgive him.

Stan:
[comes to a certain realization] Wait a minute. That's it! I don't get it.
Kyle:
...Huh?
Stan:
Don't you see, Kyle?? I don't get it! [smiles, then walks up to Token] Token, I get it now. I don't get it. I've been trying to say that I understand how you feel, but, I'll never understand. I'll never really get how it feels for a black person to have somebody use the N word. I don't get it.
Token:
Now you get it, Stan. [smiles]
Stan:
[smiles] Yeah. I totally don't get it.
Token:
Thanks, dude.

Entire script can be seen at: http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_11/episode_1101/epi1101script/

Video of entire episode can be watched online at: http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_11/episode_1101/epi1101watchonline/

"With Apologies to Jesse Jackson." South Park. Creators Matt Stone, Trey Parker. Comedy Central, New York. 07 Mar 2007.


The South Park episode, “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” is all about the harm the n-word can have on people and why it is offensive. It shows how white people of privilege just don’t understand how saying this term makes black people feel.

Although the n-word can be offensive to anyone who hears it, even if they are not black, only blacks can truly understand what it feels like to be called the n-word. To whites, it is a bad word that should not be said because it is derogatory and offensive. To blacks, it is a reminder of what their ancestors went through during slaves time, and the power whites had over blacks. In “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson,” Randy Marsh is ridiculed by the entire country for saying the n-word on national television and becomes known as the “nigger guy.” At one point in the episode, he starts an African American scholarship fund in his name and is giving a speech in front of black people. He says that he wants to rid himself of the bad name people have given him but none of them could understand what it is like to have someone use such a term to identify you. He is completely oblivious to the fact that what he is feeling is how black people feel when they hear or are called the n-word. By being in a place of white privilege, he has never had to think about how the n-word can be offensive to other people and how it would make people feel hearing it. This is exactly what Johnson is talking about in Chapter 2: “Privilege, Oppression, and Difference.” He says, “The ease of not being aware is an aspect of privilege itself, what some call ‘the luxury of obliviousness…White privilege gives whites little reason to pay attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them”(22). White people don’t understand how the n-word makes black people feel because they don’t have to. With white privilege, it does not matter. Because blacks are in the position of oppression, the constantly feel the effects of white privilege and are aware of it. However, because white privilege only helps whites, they do not see the negative effects it can have on black people because that does not matter to them in their status. Without the oppression of blacks, whites would not receive privilege. Randy, a white male, was in the position to receive white privileges. He had no idea what being called the n-word felt like and neither did his son Stan. Stan does not understand why his black friend Token is upset until he realizes that he cannot understand and he never will understand because he is not black. By being a white person, he will never truly understand the meaning of being called the n-word to a black person.

Although I could not believe how many times this episode used the n-word, I think the last monologue sent a good message that parallels what Johnson was trying to say. The episode does it in a backwards way of having the white person being called an offensive name so that he can see what it feels like and then is completely oblivious to the fact that that is how black people feel when he called them the n-word. This episode may have opened people’s eyes to the fact that they should think about things like this, even if before they never did because they were never directly affected by it.

My Father's Gift

Kazuko Nakao and her family were among the thousands of American citizens of Japanese heritage that were forced into interment camps after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was a time of severe ditrust and racial stereotyping. One night the FBI came to take her father away, acusing him of being a spy. He, of course, was not. The family had to live in horrible, cramped conditions. Kazuko had her wedding inside the camp. After having to live in a camp for several years, the family was released with the end of WWII and able to return to their home. However, when the growing community came to Kazuko's father years later needing some of his land to build a new school, he did not hold a grudge against America and refuse to give up his land. Instead, he gave them an incredible deal and sold his land for the same price he had purchased it for originally, not the current value of the land. He was able to realize that eventhough he had hard times here, everything he had in his life was thanks to the opportunities he recieved from being in America. The school district was so grateful to him that they named the school after him and they make a point ot teach their students about what happened to Japanese Americans in the country's history.

Nakao, Kazuko. "My Father's Gift." Guideposts May 2007: 80-85.

During World War II, 120,000 Japanese-Americans were forced into interment camps while the United States was at war with Japan. The United States government and many of its citizens were afraid the Japanese were spies helping the enemy. All Japanese people, citizens or not, guilty or innocent, were stereotyped as potentially dangerous to the war effort and placed into camps. This happened to Kazuko Nakao and her family.

Kazuko’s family was living in California on their strawberry farm when they were taken from their home and forced to live in interment camps for three and a half years during World War II. The United States government determined that all Japanese-Americans posed a threat to the country and could be spies for Japan. Kazuko’s father was accused one night by the FBI of hiding a radio in his living room and was arrested. No charges were ever filed and he was released later that evening. However, the FBI had no reason to suspect the innocent man of any crime other than the fact that he ascended from Japan. Because he and his family were different, they were oppressed and unfairly treated during this time in American history. Johnson talks of differences and people’s fear of them in Chapter 2: “Privilege, Oppression, and Difference.” Johnson says that it is a common myth that people are fearful of the unknown but that it is not true. People become fearful when they think they might know something about the unknown. He says, “There is nothing inherently frightening about what we don’t know. If we feel afraid, it isn’t what we don’t know that frightens us, it’s what we think we do know”(13). The American government had never before been fearful of Japanese-Americans, not had other American citizens. It was only after Japan attacked the United States and the government became fearful of spies that this fear of the Japanese and need to put them under control came about. Although many of those imprisoned were good, innocent citizens that had been a part of the country and is prosperity, they were stereotyped as possible spies because they looked like the Japanese enemy.

I found this story amazing, not because of the Japanese interment camps but because of Kazuko’s father. I had learned of Japanese interment camps in school history classes so what happened to Kazuko’s family, though wrong and unfair, was no surprise to me. What surprised me was how generous and forgiving a person can be. Even though his family was taken from their home for over three years for no reason, when asked to sell some of his land to build a new school for the district, Kazuko’s father not only did so, but sold the land for what it was worth when he first purchased it, not for its present day value. After being so poorly and unfairly treated, he was still able to see that America had given him everything he had to be thankful for, everything he had hoped for when coming here. If forgiveness and thankfulness like his was more abundant, the world would be an amazing place.

The Longest Yard

http://www.kapitalismo.com/archives/longest-yard.jpg

In the movie The Longest Yard, Adam Sandler is trying to get a football team together composed of inmates while he is in jail. They are to play against the guards of the prison to give the guards practice for their upcoming football season. Adam Sandler is analyzing his team and noticing that he does not have any players that are very fast and discusses his concern with Chris Rock’s character.

Chris Rock: What'd you expect? You got no brothers out there.

Adam Sandler: What are you talking about? We got Switowski.

Chris Rock: Switowski? That's one brother. That's a lonely nigga. This ain't hockey.
You want some speed, you know where to go.

A full transcript for the movie The Longest Yard can be found at: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/l/longest-yard-script-transcript-sandler.html

Adam Sandler is looking for speed on his football team in The Longest Yard. Chris Rock tells him that he has no speed because the majority of his team is white and that if he wants speed on his team, he needs to recruit some black people. This implies that black people are naturally faster and have better athletic ability than white people. This is exactly what the video Race: The Power of Illusion discusses.

Chris Rock’s character tells Adam Sandler that he needs black people on his team for it to be fast. The Longest Yard portrays Adam Sandler as the typical white quarterback of the team and his team needs some fast black men. The white men in the film that are put on the football team are either very large and used as blockers and tacklers, or made to appear very clumsy and non-athletic. The black men trying to be recruited for speed are all muscular men that hang out at the basketball court playing each other. One of the basketball players agrees to play with Adam’s team and is extremely fast running through the desert with no shows on their practice field. Chris Rock implies that the black man has slave feet; he can handle the hard ground with no shoes and does not need such a luxury that white people do. This idea that black people are better athletes and can run faster than white people is discussed in Race: The Power of Illusion. It had been believed for a long time that there were significant genetic differences between whites and blacks that allowed blacks to run faster and be more athletic. It was often argued that this was because blacks were more wild and more closely related to apes, as if they had not evolved as much as white people. There were many scientific studies done to try to prove such things and often, scientists of long ago, would come to the conclusion that blacks were very different and had different bodies than whites. It is still a common myth today that black people have an extra muscle in their legs that allows them to run faster than white people. None of these things are true, as stated and proved in Race; The Power of Illusion, but they are still used in movies today. This causes the idea that these myths are true to continue and for people to keep believing them. As Hollywood films reinforce these beliefs, the idea that race is genetic and whites and blacks are so different makes it harder and harder to ignore race as a factor in society.

After having watched Race: The Power of Illusion and then watching The Longest Yard, I realized how many references there are to the differences in black people and white people. The movie is full of racial differences, comments, and jokes. Although put in the movie for humor, they influence people to think that these differences do exist and are genetic. Although I had used to find this movie solely entertaining, I now see how such jokes and ideas can unknowingly influence a person.

Playstation Billboard

Ryan, Oliver. "The Browser." CNNMoney. 05 July 2006. 3 Oct 2007 .

This image is of a billboard advertisement from Sony. It is promoting the new color available for their Playstation Portable product. However, it does so by showing a white woman showing power of a submissive and frightened looking black woman. This advertisement started much controversy when it came out and some of the ads were pulled from certain countries.

This advertisement is another good example of one of Johnson’s ways to get off the hook in Chapter 8: “It doesn’t count if you don’t mean it.” This billboard was put up by Sony to promote a new variation of its product, the Playstation Portable. When the gaming device originally came out, it was only available in black. When Sony decided to release the product in white, they started an advertising campaign that pictured two women of contrasting colors as the gaming products are: black and white. Sony only meant this advertisement to show the contrast in the two colors as far as their product goes. Their was no underlying racial message that they were also trying to get across. However, because in the advertisement the white woman is being forceful over the black woman and showing dominance, many people found this billboard to be sending a racial message and not a good one at that. It seems to relay the message that used to be widespread in America, that whites have a certain power over blacks. Johnson argues in Chapter 2: “Privilege, Oppression, and Difference,” that whites do still have power over blacks in society and receive certain privileges that blacks are denied. Because of these privileges that are given to whites, blacks are, in turn, oppressed. Although this is not the message Sony meant to get across, as Johnson says in Chapter 8, the message is still there and being put across if other people see it as such. Intent is not the only thing that matters. Johnson says, “They seem to think that if they don’t mean it, then it didn’t happen, as if their conscious intent is the only thing that connects them to the consequences of what they do or don’t do”(114). Even though Sony did not mean for this message to be in their advertisement, the consequences of the racial stir it caused is their responsibility.

I found this controversy very interesting. When I first saw the advertisement, I immediately saw how someone could find racial meaning in it. However, in my opinion, the ad’s racial meaning is gone with the words in the corner promoting Sony’s new product. It is for a gaming device, not the Ku Klux Klan. Although Johnson uses his argument in Chapter 8 of “Call it something else” to the opposite affect, I think this falls in that category but to the other extreme. Johnson refers to people calling real racist and sexist problems by cutesy names to make them seem less of a problem. I see this advertisement being considered a racial controversy as people doing the opposite. They are taking an advertisement for a gaming device and turning it into an issue of race. There are black people and white people in the world. Nothing can change the fact that they are two opposite and different colors, so when these colors are used to show contrast, there should be no offense in that.

Movie "Who's There"

Guess Who. Dir. Kevin Rodney Sullivan. Perf. Ashton Kutcher, Bernie Mac. Videocassette. Sony, 2005.

In the movie Guess Who, a black woman brings home her boyfriend, a white male played by Ashton Kutcher, to meet her parents. Her father is played by Bernie Mac, who does not approve of his daughter being with a white man. One night over a family dinner, the subject of black jokes is brought up and Bernie Mac taunts Ashton Kutcher into telling a few. The family finds his first few funny but then Ashton tells this joke.

Ashton Kutcher: What are three things that a black man can't get?


Bernie Mac: What is that he can't he get?


Ashton Kutcher: A black eye, a fat lip, and a job.

A complete transcript for the movie can be found at: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/g/guess-who-script-transcript.html

There is silence at the table until Bernie Mac’s character yells at Ashton and leaves the table.

The movie Guess Who is full of black and white stereotypes that are brought to the surface when an interracial couple goes home to tell family they are getting married. This movie is a wonderful example of the racial thoughts and boundaries that still exist in our society today.

In Johnson’s chapter “Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance,” he mentions several ways that people who receive privileges and in turn cause others to be oppressed, try to get out of taking responsibility. One of his ways of getting off the hook is when people tell themselves, “It doesn’t count if you don’t mean it”(114). In the movie “Who’s There,” Ashton Kutcher’s character is telling black jokes to his girlfriend’s black family to be humorous. The first couple he tells are light-hearted and the family laughs with him. However, his joke about black people not being able to get a job offended them, especially his girlfriend’s father, even though he did not mean it to be offensive. Johnson says in his chapter, “’I didn’t man it’ can stop a conversation before people get to the reality that it doesn’t matter whether it was meant or not. The consequence remains the same”(114). Although Ashton did not intend to upset his girlfriend’s family, he did because the joke was offensive. He did not come up with the joke himself and he did not think the joke was a truth but it still has the same consequences to the black family as if he had meant the joke to be offensive. By anyone finding humor in such a joke and passing it on to their friends, the joke lives on and whatever its original message was lives on as well. In this case, the jokes original message was that someone honestly thought black people could not get jobs. By allowing to joke to be retold time after time, the message is retold as well. Even if people only see it as a joke when they hear it or mean it as a joke when they tell it, they are still keeping alive the idea that black people are inferior when it comes to the workplace. It says they cannot get good work or hold a good job and makes them sound lazy. This may not be the intent of anyone who tells the joke but as Johnson said, that does not change the consequences it can have.

I agree with Johnson’s idea of intent and consequences in this case. People may not mean something, such as a racist joke, to be offensive, but it still has negative consequences. Because the joke is a black joke, it singles out blacks as a race, putting them in a separate social category and furthering progress of equality. It also may be humorous to say with other white people around but most would not say a black joke to another black person because they know the black person might be offended. If it is not appropriate to say to them and might offend them if they heard it, it is not all right to say just because they are out of earshot. The offensiveness is still there whether a black person heard it and felt offended directly or not.