top three things that i love today

1. the interns at work

2. korilla bbq - mmm... kimchi

3. Anthony Borrdain's no reservations

that is all.

waiting for superman, part deux

I forgot to mention, there was one thing that I did like about Waiting for Superman - the portrayal of families of color, in a sense, the de-pathologizing of Black families

The Black and Latino families that are portrayed in the news and pop culture feed off of negative stereotypes of welfare queens, crack addicts and absent fathers. The explanation for poor performance in  Black and Latino children usually begins with their families not valuing education. This is so silly since education is so popularly and universally valued. No, Asians and Jewish people do not value education more than any one else. It is not an explanation as to why they do well in school. Nor is it an explanation as to why other students fail.

The families in the film all cared deeply about their children's education, making large sacrifices in order to finance and support their child's learning through additional tutoring or by sending them to private school.

Some reviews have faulted the film with having only shown parents invested in their child's education - which seems problematic to say the least. Instead, the documentary excels in its provision of a counternarrative to the idea of pathological Black families and a culture of poverty.

waiting for (race)

Today, I finally got a chance to see "Waiting for Superman" -- a new documentary that is supposed to highlight the pitfalls of our education system. I had heard negative reviews from my friends who are schoolteachers, but still wanted to see for myself.

One would think that a movie about the problems with education (and a movie that at times historicizes concepts) would mention officially sanctioned racial segregation (then desegregation and then de facto segregation spurred by current policies and court judgments!) and race. Race is not used once. Not one time.

The documentary features five children: a hispanic girl from Los Angeles, a black girl from New York, a hispanic boy from New York, a black boy from D.C. and a white (older) girl from Silicon Valley. (Which thing is not like the other?) All the children expect the white child live in urban poor districts and attending failing schools. The white girl lives in a neighborhood where the average home price is just below 1m and attends a stunningly beautiful all-white school. She wishes to attend a charter school because her test scores are lower than she would like. The narrator mentions how "middle-class" kids suffer too because a small minority of over-performing children make the school averages look better when many of the kids are not where they should be. And, while it is important to realize that America's education problem is far reaching and across the board, it isn't the same across the board. To compare in a way that suggests symmetry between the white wealthy girl and the poor black and brown children is apalling. And, to not mention how race plays a factor in all of this is nothing short of shameful.

All of the children are trying to get into charter schools. The documentary correctly makes the point that if they stay in their failing public schools, most will drop out and all will be grade levels behind where they are supposed to be. Most of them do not win the lottery to get into their preferred charter school. And, the film fails to problematize this.

The documentary also overwhelming points to teachers as the problem, while simultaneously saying that teachers aren't the problem, unions are. Well, folks, what are unions made of? Teachers! The focus on failing teachers, and not failing curriculum, the lack of integration, lack of resources, too short school day, and tracking. 

And in terms of just production, editing, conception, etc. - it doesn't really build much of an argument for anything (well maybe except for the inadequacy of teachers). The long montage of famous, smart people who went to public school? Unnecessary and confusing. The scenes that were cut in of classroom situations from various cartoons, movies, tv shows and 50s instructional videos? Unnecessary and confusing. They brought in a lot of stuff but didn't really delve into it: KIPP schools, Harlem Children's Zone, Michelle Yee, rubber rooms in NYC etc.

All in all, this had the potential of being great in concept, but flatlined in the first few minutes.

oh, i thought you were dead

I was exhausted tonight going home. I had spent the day volunteering and, as usual, the trains were barely running. My normally 20 minute express train had turned into a 40 minute local monster. So, I took a nap...

... only to be awaken by the mta police. I actually wasn't dead asleep; I was semi-cognizant that the next stop was mine, but still sleepy enough that when I woke up I had to wipe away a little drool. (hehe) Anyways, our conversation is roughly as follows:

MTA Police: Oh, you're alive.

Me: Uh, yes, I was napping.

MTA Police: I wasn't sure, I thought you might be dead.

Me: WHAAA?! No! Do you find many dead people?

MTA Police: Oh, yes, all the time. I already found four dead people this week. They just don't talk about it.

Me: Yo, that's mad crazy. Seriously?!

MTA Police: Yeah, we find dead people all the time. I mean, you could have had a heart attack.

Me: ::confused::

MTA Police: I'm not saying you're going to have a heart attack, don't worry. But, people have heart attacks and die.

Me: Hmm. Okay. Well, thank you.

Wait, what? Did the MTA Police really think my hunched over self was dead? Apparently, yes. It's definately an odd feeling to have been thought of as dead. Disconcerting, uncomfortable and weird.

It makes me wonder just how many people are found dead in subway cars and if I've ever been in a car with a dead person and not have realized it. It's eery. Especially since it's a very real possibility. And, I wonder if it's something that I should be more aware of - not necessarily "are there dead people around me?" but just generally being more conscious and aware of people around me.

and they say chi-city

admittedly, i've been a little slack lately. but as your birthday present to me, i ask your forgiveness, but i'm back and posting. this past weekend, for my birthday i was in Chicago visiting friends. and, although, i don't normally post about travel - i figured i would today.

i hadn't (and still haven't) had much time to research chi-city before i got there for my short trip. what i did know was that it was a city full of rich history, great hip hop artists (or should i say GOOD?) and pretty fly architecture.

so, i dragged my friends on the 1 hour architecture tour. while self-aware of how geeky i was being, i wasn't embarassed enough to not do it or get super excited the entire time leading up to said tour. and, being a new yorker, i'm not really into "tours." if anything, i'll use frommer's and take myself on a self-guided tour, but pay to go on a tourist trap -- usually not my thing. but, i have to admit, the tour was AMAZING. if you go to chicago, you gotta take the architecture tour. see the picture above? well, i didn't take it, but i promise that you get that view but better for an entire hour. the architecture tour is on a boat that takes you down the river and through downtown chicago. you get a little history, a little urban planning, some architecture and really just a lot of interesting things to look at and consider. we got on the tour at 6:15 so the sun was just setting and everything was lit up and beautiful. we missed some things that are better seen in daylight, but it was okay because if we had taken it in daylight we would miss seeing everything lit up.

i also saw The Lion King - disney's traveling tour. not really a Chicago thing, but i gotta mention it because it was breathtaking. if you haven't yet, see it!

had chicago deep dish pizza and chicago style popcorn (caramel and cheese mix). it was good - i'm glad i went and had it, but, honestly, nothing i would run back for. new haven pizza still easily takes the cake for me. i ate the stuffed version at Giordano's which like i said was mediocre. i mean it was good, but nothing to write home about. what was interesting was that the crust was flakey, almost like pastry. the popcorn was good because it was super fresh and i'm used to eating the popcorn that comes in those big cans around christmas time... haha! as for other food, i ate at the Original Pancake House, would not recommend it. i was expecting so much more but got really bad corned beef hash and mediocre pancakes. they were more yeasty and acidic which was interesting, but i'm not really running back there.

as for nightlife, we went to a couple of bars. (met a really cute guy!) chicago didn't have the depth of establishments like new york does, but we went to a couple quality spots. i hear that midwestern men are more polite and generally less aggressive and grimey than east coast guys - and that stereotype certainly rang true that night. other highlights of the night: watching a girl be so drunk she literally just fell at my feet, getting hit on by some drunk lesbian who obviously was there with her girlfriend and dancing to N.O.R.E.

anyways, had an amazing time and felt like i got to do some Chicago things. i stuck to mostly downtown because that's where both my friends lived, but next time, i would like to explore some other areas. downtown was clean, but almost to the point of feeling sterile and contrived. nice, but i guess i like the gritty stuff.

a message from your humble editor

happy birthday to me!

be back tomorrow.

love, khl

"The Mean Girls of Morehouse": Gender at Same-sex Colleges

A recent vibe article entitled "The Mean Girls of Morehouse" focuses on a group (self-named "Plastics") who are current and former students at Morehouse - an all male historically black college in Atlanta, but whom have felt stifled at the overt criticism of their lifestyle. The group often cross-dresses, wears makeup and takes female hormones. And, while I don't agree with Morehouse defining what a man is and what a man is not, I am hesitant to say that these students belong there.

Simply put, women do not belong at Morehouse.

In the same vein, I don't believe men belong at all-women's colleges like Spelman or Barnard, for example. But, let me be a little more specific: I recognize the difference between gender and sex. Gender is self-identification -- do you identify as a man or a woman? Sex is physically identified. So, the Morehouse Plastics are male in terms of sex and what in terms of gender?

“I’ve always been into clothes, shoes, hair and everything,” says Diamond, who was born and raised in Providence, R.I. He says there’s a good chance he’ll transition into a woman at some point. “My mother says I always played dress-up in her clothes, my grandmother’s clothes. I’d even get my brother to do it sometimes. That’s just always been me—pushing the envelope of what I’m supposed to be as a man.”

So does Diamond really consider herself a man? At the question, he groans. “Yes, I refer to myself as a man, you know, to relieve any confusion. Sometimes people don’t understand the whole androgyny thing. There’s always the question: Well, what are you? Yes, I’m a man. I like women’s clothes. And yeah, I’m gay. But I don’t want that to define me. How come people can’t just see me as a person?”

What's problematic is both Diamond and the author can't seem to make up their mind as to Diamond's gender. The author uses both female and male pronouns to describe Diamond; and, Diamond declares himself a man, but add the qualifier ("to relieve any confusion") and talks about eventually transitioning to a woman. 

And, Diamond really doesn't have to choose which gender he/she is... unless he/she has expressly placed himself in an environment in which is predicated upon him being gendered as a man. 

Same-sex colleges are special places designed to help men and women achieve in environments designed to help them thrive. Morehouse is an all-male college. So, unless Diamond truly sees himself as a man, he shouldn't be there. There are plenty of colleges where the questioning of his gendered identity would be more acceptable, but at a same-sex college it becomes contentious. Diamond, if she identifies as a woman, misidentified herself and lied in order to insert herself into the college. If, she entered as a man, then when she decided not to be a man anymore she should have withdrawn or at least consulted with someone at the college. However, if Diamond is resolute in his identity as a male, then he belongs there as much as anyone does.

One last thing, this is not a gay/straight issue. This has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with gender.

out my mind

too tired for a post tonight, but i'll make it extra special tomorrow.

love,
khl

the objectification of gay men

in belated honor of national coming out day and in celebration of the federal judge who today made "don't ask don't tell" illegal, a subject on sexuality. so, this blog post was supposed to be about the objectification gay men by straight women codified as "he's my gay best friend!" it's something that's irked me for a while. it seems that no matter how many friends a girl might have, their arsenal isn't complete until one of them is gay (and male - no lesbians allowed!). and he can't just be your gay friend, but he needs to be your best friend. it's an oversimplification and stereotypical way of viewing gay men. the gay best friend is supposed to be basically what your friends are: catty, into clothes, into boys and validating.

but i say supposed to because when i was researching some information for the post, i ran into this post on Salon from a couple of months ago called, "gay best-friend: the 'it' accessory" needless to say, i was dissappointed. it's an interesting read; i like how she describes the gay best friend "as that new knight in shining armor: the mystical, magical gay boy who'll always have your back" -- it's remiscent as the "magical negro" (google search spike lee magical negro if you don't get that one).

the only thing i would add is that many gay men are complicit in this objectification. they act out the stereotype to adhere to the idealized "gay best friend." i'm not going so far as to say that gay men like to be stereotyped, but i am saying that it is highly problematic that they choose to play into this role. speaking to one of my gay male friends, he acknowledged the role that many gay men play and said it was theatrical and truly acting - a sort of turning on for a specific audience. this, however, does nothing to help the community in fostering images that combat the (idealized?) simplified stereotype of what it means to be gay. not cool, guys.

thoughts/comments?

the women

so just a few reflections before i go to sleep tonight. early today i met with the women for dinner. who are these women and what they mean to me i can not attempt to answer, but i want to put down some of the thoughts that are going through my mind following our dinner.

so, there are four of us. we met while studying civil rights case law under a brillant and inspiring lawyer and woman. collectively, we speak english, spanish, french, italian, hebrew and a little bit of korean (oh and british english). half of us sometimes call a place outside the states our home. we have a teacher, a politico, a business woman fashionista and a lawyer-hopeful. two jews, two gentiles. different races, different economic class backgrounds. brooklyn, manhattan and london (for now). and, frankly, there is no good explanation why we all are such close friends and confidants. and, if it wasn't for the class (or the teacher) we probably would have just passed in and out of each others lives.

but we didn't.

i am over-joyed to call these women my friends and to watch us grow up. earlier i asked "when did we become grown ups?" to have friends who genuinely love and support you is precious. to be inspired by your friends even more rare. they are a gift and here is some small tidbits of our conversation for you:

- the need for demanding business equity in a start-up company
- the recent surprisingly realization of the coming together of womanhood, motherhood and our bodies
- strategic career planning
- anonymity in social networking websites
- the problem of education
- the problem of education
- the problem of education
- how women look more sexy with less skin
- hasidic jewish education
- critical race theory
- age and experience

i've also finally decided to finally completely cut myself off from gossip magazines and blogs. i should pay more attention to my own life. anyways amazing night. not so amazing post. i'm sick and need rest. that's my excuse and i'm sticking to it.

love,
khl

indigenous peoples, affirmative action and economic development

a couple months back, i was thinking about reparations - reparations, what a controversial word - and indigenous peoples in america. i asked if we see limited government regulation of indigenous-owned casinos as a sort of reparations, what would it look like if extended to African-Americans? specifically, gambling - formally illegal in most states - could be analogized to marijuana. marijuana though illegal as a recreational drug in the united states is not blanketly illegal globally and is not illegal for medicinal use in some areas of the united states. what would it look like if marijuana was legalized and African-Americans were able to have a monopoly of the sale of it? (and i want to be careful in suggesting marijuana because of the historical correlation between Af-Ams and marijuana/illegal drugs - i simply chose that because it is a vice that could potentially be legalized like alcohol and gambling.)

that was my initial question. after a bit of google-search research, i am shifting the question and annotating my commentary. after reading a semi-angry letter from the national indian gaming association in response an op-ed entitled "indian casinos open way for black reparations" published in the latimes, i want to tread very lightly in an effort not to make my argument clear. bluecorncomics features both the article and responses as a stereotype of the month. what the arthur, dickey, does not do well is explain his argument and in failing to do so, offends native peoples. so, here's for doing a bit better than him.

first of all, i am not arguing that the indian gaming regulatory act was in any sense reparations in the traditional sense. if we see reparations as the making of amends for a wrong that has been done by paying money or otherwise helping those who have been wronged, the regulatory act was certainly not this because it was not framed as part of an apology for genocide, economic depravement, etc. nor does it help all indigenous peoples in the united states - it only helps a select population. additionally, i am not contending that indigenous peoples and african americans are essentially the same. there are some huge differences - the fact that indigenous peoples are sovereign, etc. but, both populations have important similarities: historical policies that were directed towards each group in order to create and preserve racial hierarchy including but not limited to economic depravation, lack of quality education, housing and utilities, and continued lack of true political clout. i hope to provide some food for thought - some theoretical food for thought and i hope that it doesn't stereotype or belittle indigenous populations, but instead, helps us consider the nature of reparations, affirmative actions, economic justice and the legalization of vices.

when both dickey and i think reparations - maybe a more appropriate term would be affirmative action or perhaps a new term not yet popularized or created (incidental positive action policy?). but, for the sake of not being too complicated, let's just call it affirmative action. policy that has been acted that affirmatively helps to level the playing field by giving a historically disadvantaged group increased opportunity for economic and social equality. affirmative action also seems appropriate because some of the objections to the regulatory act uses the same language as objections to affirmative action. An article I found on a Berkeley University site writes how Donald Trump, in an attempt to stop the growth of reservation casinos filed a civil suit alleging the regulatory act unconstitutional and claiming that it gives preferential treatment and an unfair advantage - two (false) arguments often used by people attacking affirmative action policies.

in part, the regulatory act was created in order to assist the indigenous peoples in achieving greater economic development. although, there have been both positive and negative consequences since then, it can't be argued that for some tribes, it has had an incredibly positive economic affect. In The Social and Economic Impact of Native American Casinos,William Evans and Julie Topoleski, they contend that "The casinos have changed the economic climate in and around the reservations. Examining the effects of casinos after at least four years of operation, the authors find that positive changes include: young adults moving back to reservations, fueling an 11.5 percent population increase; adult employment increasing by 26 percent; and a 14 percent decline in the number of working poor. In counties with or near a casino, the employment- to- population ratio has increased and mortality has declined." Additionally, JoAnn Jones, a tribal chair of the Wisconson Winnebago Nation has said, authors

Tribal governments realize that a casino is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve what no state or federal economic development program has been able to achieve for Indian people in 200 years--the return of self-respect and economic self-sufficiency.

so, because of federal policy, indigenous peoples have been able to more easily set up casinos with less overhead than non-indigenous casinos. they have profited and been able to benefit economically from the policy. in many ways, the stated goal of increasing economic development has been achieved. 

so, with that background, could we extend a similar program to african americans? instead of cutting a check (as a one-time 'i'm sorry' that would only affect one or two generations and not in a substantial way), could we enact a policy which allows african-americans to have a larger market share of an in-demand item (possibly tax-free)? if african-americans could corner the market on some other vice (like marijuana) what sort of economic growth would occur? should reparations programs look more like this instead of a one-time payment?

gender normativity in jobs

 

In the recent issue of Psychological Science, Victoria Brescoll from the Yale School of Management contributes, "Hard Won and Easily Lost: The Fragile Status of Leaders in Gender-Stereotype-Incongruent Occupation." Her findings aren't really surprising, but the analysis is. Brescoll isn't exactly groundbreaking: basically if you are a female in a traditionally male role and make a one small mistake than you are seen as incompetent. She goes on to say that a male in a traditionally female role is held to the same (silly) standard. It's the glass cliff.

What I find a bit troubling is how she uses the results to distance the phenomenon from gender discrimination. She writes,

We hypothesized that this effect is driven by reactions to individuals in roles inconsistent with their gender—and not simply by discrimination against women—and we predicted that a similar penalty would be evident for men and women in gender-incongruent jobs.

However, the below findings suggest that women do not suffer from discrimination the same way that men do.

Status conferral is calculated using four factors: status, power, independence and respect. Although the two jobs: that of President of a women's college and police chief were chosen because they are seen to be on par with each other, the President of the women's college (whether male or female) is seen as having less status as a police chief. And, not to knock police chiefs, but there are a lot - one in every single city across the whole of the united states. There are not many women's colleges. In order to be a President of a women's college you have to have advanced degrees, substantial research and prestige and respect within the scholarly community. In order to be police chief of a small town, you don't need nationwide recognition of your work. So, why are they seen as equal by the researchers? And, why is a Preisdent of a women's college seen as less prestigeous by the research participants? I can venture a guess that if they used President of a co-educational college v. President of a women's college - the results would not be the same. 

Additionally, the fall from the glass cliff is steeper for women than for men. I just don't get how this isn't a gendered issue - how this isn't an example of gender discrimination. Because, let's face it, most high-powered jobs are dominated by men and seen as male terrain. The fact that the most prestigious female gendered job they could find was president of a women's college (when there are probably less than 10 women's colleges in the nation) is telling. This is a female issue. This is not to say that it shouldn't be recognized that it occurs to men as well - but by and large it happens to women. To frame this as not part of a larger gender issue is a mistake.

and we thought Americans were helicopter parents?

hey beautiful people. just a small comment today building on yesterday's comment about the kid who brought his parent to a grad school fair. last month there was an article in the daily mail about chinese parents who sleep on the floor of the school gym to be close to their children as they begin university. this is not a new practice. for the past five years, universities in china have allowed the parents of new students to sleep on mats in the gym for the first week or so of classes in order to help them get acclimated. huh? crazy right?

i think that i'm often most critical of america for the things we do and the things we've done. but we literally have nothing on china in this case of extreme helicopter parenting. in one of my first posts, i talked about how the idea of different developmental stages changed over time and how some researchers posit that the newest is "young adulthood" a sort of in between stage. in this stage, young adults are still closely linked to their parents (both financially and emotionally) at at time when previous generations would've been married and on their own.

now, if in china parents think its okay to sleep on the university gym floor and in america parents are accompanying their children to thinks like graduate fairs, it begs the question: when do we need to just cut the cord? or do people not see much utility anymore in cutting the mythical cord?

i love my boo

love, love, love the new campaign out of gmch called "i love my boo." if you live in new york, you've definitely seen the posters all over the subways. love is a beautiful thing. support it.

they're asking people to make it their profile picture for a week to raise awareness. will do. 

and please put an end to all this homophobic nonsense. let your people know it's not cool. don't let shit slide.

pre-professional networking events or why i wanted to rip my eyes out this weekend

so this weekend, i attended a law school fair in new york. basically, it looks a lot like the above picture - where each law school gets a table and students line up to speak to admission representatives. my purpose in going was to try and get a feel for the schools and see if i felt like i would be a good fit. i knew i had to narrow down where i was going to apply unless i wanted to go broke and live off of ramen next fall. fortunately, the fair helped me narrow this list down.

i have a bunch of interests in going to law school but they all are associated with an interest in race, gender and the law. (surprise, surprise - thus the theme of my blog!) i've learned that simply engaging in discussions of race and gender does not guarantee a good time, and trying to do that in an environment where people really aren't feeling your radicalism is probably a guarantee of a bad time. instead, i am looking for a campus full of professors and students who wish to engage in these topics, in addition to professors who are knowledgeable, critical and interested in this work. having come from an all women's college, i also understand the importance of having female professors. (side note: i'm truly surprised that numbers skew slightly in favor of men, that is, more men are in law school than women) so, my stock questions for the admission reps had to do with whether there was a program, institute or classes devoted to critical race theory; what professors were actively engaging in critical race theory and feminist legal theory; and how many professors of color were at the school.

now that i'm at my second job since graduating from college, i have come to truly appreciate the fact that you need to be interviewing the employer/school as much as they are interviewing you. in other words, i came with the expectation that the reps would try to sell their school to me more than any of my efforts to impress them. having been in a work situation that was not a good fit, i want to be very careful that i don't end up at a school that is not a good fit.

anyways those where my goals, and here are some of my observations:

• for the top 20 schools and the nyc schools, there was usually a 15-20 minute wait time. i should've expected this. what i shouldn't have expected (and didn't expect) was waiting behind a girl while she spent 10 minutes asking questions that included, "should recommendations be single or double spaced?" "do you have a preferred font?" and "what kind of margins do you think look the best?" really? REALLY? the worst part of this show was that the admissions rep was actively engaged with her and giving a genuine response to this. that added to the fact they were dismissive of my questions makes me not even want to bother to apply.
• some schools were especially rude. to the point that it makes me feel lukewarm about their school altogether. i asked them how many faculty where faculty of color? They were like "uh, well i dont keep statistics. it's not good, but it's comparable to other elite schools." ....... whereas others were like "that's something we're def. concerned about. we have a good handful, but we really are concentrating on recruiting more."
• one big named school was really standoffish and uninformative. i was concerned about the huge class and feeling like I might feel lost, especially coming from such a small undergrad institution. in response they gave me some textbook answer instead of actually engaging with my question. i was like oh and you just inadvertently answered the question by giving me some stock answer and not even really looking at me. i am just a number, thanks. 
• on the flipside, my alma mater was mad real with me. i admitted that i was frankly a bit unsure if it's a good fit because I want to be in a community where many people are interested in public service, CRT, feminist theory, etc. and they were like well I'm not sure if we would be a perfect fit if those things are important to you but you should try to talk to some of the students to get their perspective. made me want to apply more.

so hopefully a little advice to the younger readers: it's really important that you interview people even when you feel under pressure. you don't want to be stuck in a situation that you don't like. and for those that this post is completely irrelevent for, a question on admissions processes in general - how can we accurately assess what a school/employer is all about, and whether we'd fit into that or not (regardless of rankings)? my undergrad school ended up being a good fit, but i think that was more good luck than a good applying process.  and, finally, a question for myself: why do i simultaneously think rankings are stupid but at the same time want to get into a top 5 school so badly?! ah! 

oh and a final request: do not bring your parents to law school/med school/grad school/job fairs. it is not cool. not cool at all.

confronting whiteness (or not?)

so after my bullshit about not letting my posting lag, i let my posting lag. oh well.

anyways, i figured i might share with you why i missed my post last night (though I had the best of intentions).

i'm auditing a class at the law school i work at and fell asleep at my computer trying to complete the reading in time for class. it's definitely been a challenge to keep up with class work when work-work takes precedence, followed by me time. i'm working on doing better. the class is an interdisciplinary look at Color Blindness; each week we tackle a different discipline and examine their approach, thoughts and contributions to Color Blind ideology. and, yes, it's as amazing as it sounds.

so instead of thinking about race, gender and identity for you all last night, i was thinking about race, gender and identity in the context of my class. i want to share with you all one of my observations.

we were assigned to read Pride, Prejudice and Ambivalence: Toward a Unified Theory of Race and Ethnicity by Hazel Rose Markus of Stanford University (published in 2008), this in the context or radical theorists like Prof. Charles Lawrence III of Georgetown who confronts the salient-nature of white supremacy and his worry that current research and theory places the focus back onto the individual (the theory of racism as within the individual expressed through prejudicial thinking) at the same time as normalizing racial bias in a way that creates a "everyone's a little bit racist" -- so what? sort of attitude.

brief avenue q interlude which is silly (but true - especially in terms of its tongue in cheek lyrics - though i know some people don't get the tongue in cheek-ness):



anyways, Markus's article was quite a departure from more radical readings that confronted race, racism and white dominance head on, instead of coding things in euphemisms. it was odd because although she confronted her whiteness to a certain extent,

I was surprised to hear myself called a White person. After all these years studying race and ethnicity, I had somehow failed to realize that I "have" race, too. Moreover my observation that things were getting better for American Indi¬ans was experienced as reflecting this White perspective.

it's not enough to acknowledge whiteness, if you don't also acknowledge the power, privilege and dominance that go along with it. moreover, even if you acknowledge whiteness but continue to engage in thinking, research and theory that comes from the desire to prove racial hierarchy, you discredit yourself. this, unfortunately, is what Markus has done.

instead of engaging with race in a meaningful way, she seemed to write this article to assuage white readers that their racism was okay. that they shouldn't feel bad about being "a little bit racist." she uses euphemisms: instead of saying white she says European, and instead of problemitizing white supremacy, she points to abstract things like "Independent Self" (code for white middle-class American values?) and the intricacies and unpacking of race vs. ethnicity. when she is not using euphemisms, she understates the signifance of white supremacy in the beginnings of psychology. psychology was developed as a way to prove racial hierarchy; its methods, tools and processes all came out of this goal. instead of pointing out the ugly truth, she says that although the field is so great, blah blah blah, there are a few "unsavory" parts of it.

even while she pointed out that middle-class whiteness is used as a standard against which everything else is abnormal, she simultaneously reinforced racial hierarchy. she does what Lawrence fears: shifts the focus back on the individual and normatizes racial bias. i do want to consider what she does do: appeal to white audiences. this Lawrence does not do so well. i wonder if is it important to construct arguments and theories that will not produce defensiveness in whites, or is that yet another act of subordination? how do we get whites on board? or even harder, how do we get white knight liberals to see that they're racist too?