Beyond Black and White: Racializing Asian Americans in a Society Obsessed with O.J.

The Lee article made me think a lot about my own heritage. As a half-Caucasian, quarter-Chinese, quarter-Pacific Islander (Guamanian, or Chamorro), I am sometimes recognized as having an "ethnic" look about me. On one job interview for an inventory position at a warehouse, the (Japanese) man who hired me said, after I aced a math prerequisite exam, "Of course you passed it! I made the decision to hire you the moment I saw you. I could spot your f---ing slanted eyes from a mile away!" The comment made me uncomfortable at the time, but I did get the job and thought not at all about it afterward. Because I am half European mix n' match (Swedish, English, and others, I guess), not everyone can tell. But when I give an indication that I am proficient at math - formerly a math major, currently a math minor - people laugh and attribute it to my race. What disturbs me is that I have certainly come to accept and even catered to this perception that my race and interests are linked, in this instance. More disturbingly, this article indicates that while black and white racial tensions have always been part of social discourse, there is little or none regarding the status of Asians or Asian Americans. As a "model minority," we expect them to be the same - to work hard, to be good at math or science, and to be, at best non-descript, and at worst, bumbling with a heavy accent. That Asians and Asian Americans are the recipients of racial stereotyping is not surprising in a country that is rife with conflict, whether it's racial, gendered, or otherwise. What is problematic is that this stereotyping is not studied or critiqued; it has been normalized. Until this article, I had never considered the serious implications of the stereotyping of Asians and Asian Americans within society. At least, with African Americans (given the white-black dichotomy we bandy about), the conflict is public and has a place for discussion. Asian and Asian American stereotyping is generally invisible and even acceptable. It begs the question, how many more groups are targeted and treated as such, with little or no recognition of the offense? And what will it take for American society to perceive these shortcomings of its purported equality? The O.J. Simpson trial was over ten years ago, and little to no attention was paid to the racializing of Asians and Asian Americans. This leaves little encouragement that recognition and representation will effectively call out the conflict, and until then, the problem will go unnoticed by many, lamented by few, and changed not at all.

Response to Hunt.

I have always been troubled by people who claim O.J. (and other people of color) "played the race card." Whether or not this particular case had an outcome predicated on race, people of color, especially African-Americans, are overrepresented in prisons. In his concluding remarks, Hunt states that everyone knows the criminal justice system has "disproportionately incarcerated deserving black-raced males" (417) (emphasis added). The use of "deserving" here is troubling, because the criminal justice system is heavily flawed and, as a part of a society that is not color-blind (no matter how much it claims to be), that system is also not unbiased. Hunt claims that white-raced people need to believe in O.J.'s guilt, and thus, the color-blindness of the system. It would surely be unfortunate for people to have to re-examine the raced partiality of the criminal and legal systems, as well as the larger social context of racial hierarchy. To do these things would mean relinquishing the top of the totem pole, as well as the ability to say that people of color are in a lower position (economically, politically, etc.) from their own laziness/uselessness/lethargy, rather than admitting some responsibility. In short, whites were hoping that O.J. Simpson would be proven guilty so they could be affirmed in their beliefs about blacks and how the system is fair for all. Luckily for them, despite Simpson's acquittal, the legal system hasn't changed, nor have the clearly biased structures in place.

Response to Alderman.

For me, this article reminded me of what happened after 9/11. During the whole united-we-stand, patriotic messages, very little attention was paid to the persons responsible, except that it might be a terrorist group. When it came out that it was Al Qaeda, we then found out that people connected to the group had been allowed to take planes in and out of the U.S. following 9/11. There was such a focus on America and its survivors that we might have lost the potential for justice. While the intentions of news outlets may have been to unite the country, they failed to ask the questions and pursue the stories that might have solved important problems. When we lose the greater perspective of world events, or national events, we lose the integrity of the media and even our country as well.

Did No-Fault Divorce Legislation Matter? Definitely Yes and Sometimes No

The Rodgers, et al. article is a response to Glenn’s critique of a previous study. Firstly, they contest Glenn’s use of linear curve for Figure 1. The use of the linear curve indicates that the Rodgers, et al. exaggerated their numbers; however, the authors used the linear-plus-quadratic curve because they felt that the increasing rate of divorces would be better explained. Though they claim that they could resolve this issue by “let[ting] the data speak” (which is used a few times in the article), the authors did a series of state-by-state graphs to show the patterns of divorce prior to and following the implementation of no-fault divorce laws in each state. The rest of the article continues in this vein, rebutting Glenn’s charges on their research project design, and arguing that 2 percent difference can be quite an impact on divorce rates nationwide. They conclude by sticking with their initial findings – that no-fault divorce laws affected the divorce rates in the U.S. – and posing more questions for further study.

My first thought when reading this article was, This is some catty shit. Seriously. The fact that Glenn responded to the article, then the authors drummed a response to his critique – it seems unnecessary. Both parties respond in order to further their agenda and to appear more knowledgeable and legitimate in their claims. But the effect is that all authors involved are petty, arguing over these semantics. Rather than writing articles back and forth, to assert one’s authority and knowledge, the feuding parties should team up and conduct a study together. At least then the energy being put into these articles would go toward a common goal and could help understand how/if no-fault divorce affects divorce. Personally, I believe that if people want to get divorced, they should be able to. If making divorce easier to obtain enables people to divorce, then more power to them. Would we prefer people to stay married because they cannot afford divorce or some other impediments? Having half of American marriages end in divorce might be embarrassing to some people and could be seen as reflecting the impulsiveness of Americans and the triviality with which they treat marriage. But I think it shows that people are determined to be happy, and in order to do so, they aren’t afraid to get married, divorce, marry again, and divorce, until they find the right person. The pursuit of happiness is a funny thing, and people go about it in many ways. And I think no-fault divorce is another nod to that American sentiment.

A Reconsideration of the Effect of No-Fault Divorce on Divorce Rates

The Glenn article is a critique of a previous study done by Nakonezny, Shull, and Rodgers study, which attributed the spike in divorce rates to the change to no-fault divorce laws. Reflecting back the figures from the other article, Glenn argues that there is no strong causal relationship between the two. Because the divorce boom happened at roughly the same time, despite no-fault divorce laws going into effect at different times for all states, indicating that other variables may have been involved in the increase. Glenn believes that the no-fault divorce laws came into effect after what is referred to as the “deinstitutionalization of marriage” happened in the United States. He concludes that the law reflects of the values of a society and that limiting access to no-fault divorce would be indicative of Americans’ views on marriage and divorce.

This article is interesting because it reminds me of the arguments about same-sex marriage. People say that granting same-sex couples this right would cheapen the institution of marriage; however, half of the marriages in the United States end in divorce. On one hand, there are people who want to retain the sanctity of their marriages, while, on the other hand, we have a group who is fighting for the privilege. If anything, giving same-sex couples the right to marry would probably lower the divorce rate, because heterosexuals seem to take marriage with a grain of salt – and that, according to Glenn, cannot be blamed on no-fault divorce. Further, I have a hard time calling marriage sacred when Britney Spears had one and annulled it two days later. There’s a great deal of blame to be spread around for the deinstitutionalization of marriage, but I doubt the fault lies with new laws and homosexuals. Surely they couldn’t do any worse than their heterosexual counterparts with marriage. We will see.

The Locker Room and the Dorm Room: Workplace Norms and the Boundaries of Sexual Harassment in Magazine Editing

In the Dellinger and Williams article, the research focuses on two magazine publishers, Gentleman’s Sophisticate and Womyn. In the former, the workplace is highly sexualized because the material itself is sexual. People see the sexual atmosphere as part of their jobs, though it could be construed as sexual harassment. The idea is that people are supposed to know what they are getting into when they join the magazine, and if they cannot handle the sexually charged atmosphere, they should leave. People in GS use humor to cope, usually revolving around the content in the magazines. When sexual innuendo and behavior crosses into personal spheres, however, employees believe harassment has occurred. The authors emphasize that sexual harassment is seen here as an individual problem, not an organizational issue. In contrast, Womyn magazine’s employees feel that talking about sexual content is part of the atmosphere. People talk about their personal lives, and because this is tolerated, the lines between what is acceptable and unacceptable are blurred. The employees at Womyn seemed think themselves immune to sexual harassment because they claimed to share a common belief in what sexual harassment is, and without men, they didn’t seem to think it was a possibility. In either context, GS or Womyn, however, sexual harassment was present, albeit in potentially different forms and with different solutions as to solving them.

What struck me about this article was the employees at Womyn. The presumed shared belief in what sexual harassment, as well as the idea that all women (especially the educated, self-proclaimed feminists who work at the magazine) would rise above it, is naïve. Women are capable of harassing others, even learned ones. To blame sexual harassment entirely on men is just ignorant. The highly sexualized nature of either workplace environment is the key culprit in the system of sexual harassment; the lack of discernible boundaries at Womyn, however, seems a greater risk for such behaviors in the workplace. With an assumed belief of what sexual harassment is, coworkers feel free to share sexual ideas, not questioning whether or not the inclusion of this material is offensive to some, never mind all.

Boundary Lines: Labeling Sexual Harassment in Restaurants

The Giuffre and Williams article focused on sexual harassment, as experienced by waiting staff in restaurants. Most respondents in the study believed their workplace to be sexually charged – rife with innuendo, touching, and other sexual behaviors – but seemed to dismiss the acts as an ingrained aspect of the food business. When sexual harassment was brought up, it was because one of three conditions: (1) the accused is a person in power; (2) the accused is of a different race or ethnicity from the accuser; or, (3) the accused is of a different sexual orientation than the accuser. Even if the acts are identical to interactions between fellow wait staff, people become uncomfortable with this familiarity with persons in power because they have no friendly relationship with the accused and believe that the manager/boss has overstepped into the accuser’s personal sphere, physically or otherwise. Similarly, people of dissimilar race or ethnicity were involved in sexual harassment, because the accusers felt no closeness or familiarity with the accused. One respondent explains, “This is not somebody that I talk to on a friendly basis… [W]hen he touches me, all I know is he is just touching me and there is no context about it. With other people, if they said something or they touched me, it would be funny or… we have a relationship. This person and I and all the other people do not. So that is sexual harassment” (Giuffre, Williams, p. 389). Lastly, people of different sexual orientations (from the accuser, that is) are named in sexual harassment. In this study, three heterosexual males indicated that they felt harassed by same-sex males, who had perpetrated the same behaviors as the rest of the wait staff. The key to this discussion is that while the harassing behaviors are considered typical among wait staff and familiars in the workplace, people outside of this sphere who engage in these behaviors are not tolerated for the same sexual behaviors.

I related very closely to this article, having worked at a movie theater for many years. Working among sixteen to twenty-four year olds, there was seldom a conversation that wasn’t about sex. Talking about sex was a universal language in which everyone could participate. Those who didn’t were simply not a part of the group, and sexual overtures – ass-grabbing, lewd comments – were generally seen as normal. Given the age range, however, “simulated” homosexuality or bisexuality was permitted and even encouraged among women, while man-to-man interactions were still seen as harassing.