6.29

Trademark Eastwoodian scowl. Ya feelin' lucky? Do ya, punk?

Don't really know what to blog about for this one. I've been tweeting about Michael Jackson for the past few days. That's getting old.

I think we're about half way (at least) through with "Gran Torino." The film is a much more entertaining film than I thought it'd be. From the previews I had seen, I thought it was going to be a standard Eastwoodian drama exercising a tour de force in themes of angst and redemption that was sure to be mentally exhausting for the viewer (RE: "Mystic River"). I look forward to finishing it now. I'm just glad we didn't watch "Crash." Most overrated film to win "Best Picture" at the Oscars since "Shakespeare In Love."

I might take a break from working on my Web site for a few days. Might tackle that take home test if I get bored. Might sneak in some time for more Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, too. Yep. Might just do that.

It's probably good I should meditate some on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in favor of the group of 17 white and one hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions in New Haven, Conn. In 2003, they all passed the test for promotions but had the results invalidated by the city because the city was afraid it might get sued because no blacks ranked high enough to get promoted, prompting possible lawsuits claiming the exam to be racially biased against blacks (RE: disparate impact). After the 17 white and one hispanic firefighters sued the city for being passed on for promotions, the district court ruled in the city's favor in 2006. That was overturned by the Supreme Court today, June 29, 2009.

Side note: some have assumed that no blacks passed the 2003 exam, which is false. 56 firefighters passed the exam, which was created by an independent, third-party company that responded to a Request For Proposal: 41 whites, 9 blacks and 6 hispanics passed - only 17 whites and 2 hispanics could expect promotion. I think they could only promote a percentage of those who passed, so that's why the other ones who passed didn't get promoted. This cut off number is confusing, but that doesn't matter. It was likely that no blacks tested high enough to be promoted to captain or lieutenent.

Key fact: the fire deparment did not administer those tests for promotions - a third-party, independent company did. This is not unusual for fire departments. These tests cost a lot of time and money if they go with the "do-it-yourself" route. The problem is that disparate impact means that something that appears neutral and non-discriminatory on the surface but is indeed discriminatory in all aspects against a protected class, can be open to heavy lawsuits. That is the language of the law and why the New Haven district court ruled in favor of the city.

Another key fact: the 18 firefighters who sued were not entitled nor guaranteed to get the promotions. They sued because they felt they were discriminated against after the city invalidated the tests.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance of race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," the court ruled.

The Supreme Court could have ruled in favor of either one and be justifiably correct, I think, given the unique facts of the case and that the City of New Haven truly did have reason to think they could've been exposed to civil rights violations and lawsuits therein. The key to understanding this case and why it could have gone either way is to know what possibly being open to a lawsuit for disparate impact means and how the New Haven fire department was walking a very fine line between making an honest drive for equal access and opportunity and engaging in reverse discrimination. A VERY fine line. The Supreme Court basically ruled that an employer cannot engage in intentional discrimination because that employer is afraid of being sued for disparate impact.

For the record, this decision isn't going to impact Sotomayor's nomination; Obama surely would've anticipated this ruling when he nominated her, and those who were already inclined to vote for or against her won't be swayed by this decision, which goes against what she endorsed. A 5-4 ruling is hardly a slam anyway.

Link to the 93-page PDF file of the Supreme Court slip opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano here. You know, in case you got tired of twiddling your thumbs for an hour.

6.24

These are my goals; I am intentionally leaving out specifics because there are many variables within the next year that can change what I'll be doing years from now.

20 years from now (42): helping and informing people who don't have the time, energy or resources to understand all the minute (but necessary) details of everyday life. This is when I lose the chip on my shoulder, stop trying to seek validation for my place in society and profession, and start making a positive difference. My goal at this period is to make a contribution to society or an individual every day. Whether I'm a PR practitioner, a reporter or a lawyer, someone will rely on me and that is, inherent, a daily goal.

10 years (32): not having the time, energy or resources to understand all the minute (but necessary) details of everyday life. I'm starting to realize that coaching does not equal criticism. But I still have insecurity issues each time I feel like I may be learning something new from a more experienced pro who's willing to teach me everything they know. What if I let my mentor down? What if I'm not good enough? My skills and abilities feel like they're stretched to the brink of their potential, and I'm still coming up short of expectation. I feel uninformed and unintelligent. But then I look around and see that most people my age have felt the same way I've felt at least once; I also begin to see that with more experience, the game will eventually slow down just enough for me to react to the quickest new turns. My goal at this period is not to panic if my WIN/LOSS record might be hovering below .500 percent.

1 year (23): This period is crucial because it's when I will have either finalized the decision to start OU Law in the Fall or I'm several months into the job of my career (PR or journalism). I feel no fear because I'm unaware of what I'm getting myself into. I only know that my undergraduate studies are over and I'll be experiencing a mysterious feeling creeping up from my chest to my throat, making my eyes watery; it will be the unfamiliar sensation of missing school. I'll immediately shake away that moment of irrationality and remind myself that college wasn't an end, but a means to an end. My goal during this time is to prepare myself mentally for some big changes ahead.

6.22

"...what the heck is wrong with J. Lo? How dare you. But I get what you're saying."

"Where are Latinos in the media?" asks a Dallas Morning News reader. The response to this E-mail question was that there are plenty of Hispanics living in the U.S. who play valuable roles in their communities, like doctors, lawyers, professors, etc., who tend to accomplish things that aren't newsworthy. The response I think sums up the conundrum of the media and its representation of groups of people - if people are obeying the law and making positive contributions to society, it's rarely news (there's simply not enough space on the budget to build a story for everyone who're doing good things). When people break the law and disrupt the order of social norms, their mugshot is on the 5 o'clock. In this case, the more mugshots lead to more images sketched into the public's mind of Latino criminals overshadowing the exponentially larger number of Hispanic doctors, lawyers, teachers and students.

That question was asked in 2007, the year illegal immigration became a political storm of controversy in Oklahoma, which I remember well. I wrote a story on Randy Terrill's House Bill 1804 and its effect on OCCC, one of the state's most diverse colleges (In Fall 2007, OCCC's enrollment comprised of 30 percent minority students, compared with OU that same period, in which minorities made up 23 percent of Fall '07 enrollments).

The feelings on the OCCC campus during the time were frustration because people felt the bill provided resistance against the college's strive for a multi-culturally diverse setting, anger against Terrill for supposedly wanting to deny immigrants an education and confusion toward how the bill would affect the college's 104 Hispanic students.

In reality, the law simply stated that if illegal students wanted to keep going to college then they needed to show that they had already, or were planning, to apply for U.S. citizenship within a year of the law taking effect (Nov. 1, 2007).

Despite the bill's simple language (I thought), it polarized much of the state - one side felt that people who advocated for illegals' presence in the U.S. really wanted to take advantage of cheap, tax-free labor. The other side threw back accusations of racism and intolerance-motivated rhetoric on behalf of those who wanted to see illegals persecuted for not obeying the law. The perception in the media of a violent, illegal Mexican with no regard for the law and its citizens running amok selling drugs and dating your daughters did not help.

But anyway, this isn't a policy reform class, it's a course about race, gender and the media. It's no question that a reporter's views and opinions somehow, though it shouldn't outside of a column or an op-ed, influence how a news story is told. That reporter's experience, mindset and relationship with other people influence how they obtain sources and construct a news story.

Regardless of how anyone in the news room feels about the U.S. government's stance on laws and pending legislation, the news still has to be told with concern for the 5 W's and 1 H. This suffers when someone in the media steps outside the scope of their profession to deny anyone their side of the story, be they of any race, gender, religious affiliation, political affiliation, sexual orientation or social status.

Yes, that means you, reporter, have to make an effort to call the 90-year-old White Supremacist, KKK member who likes to set cute puppies on fire and give him a fair and accurate position in a story. It doesn't matter what you, or most of society think of him - it's your job, and the journalistic standards from which you agreed with, whether you're aware of it or not, dictates that you do not create news. I.e., you do not assume that no one in the community likes the 90-year-old racist, puppy-hater. If you suspect this to be the case, you must get quotes from other people within the community. On second thought, scratch that - get other people's opinion regardless.

You cannot deny a group of people their side of a news story. Specifically, you cannot ignore giving illegal Hispanics a fair representation just because you have difficulty breaking the language barrier, confirming who's a legal resident and who isn't or disagree with their presence in the U.S. in general. Their existence within U.S. borders plays a huge role in immigration laws, which is an even bigger political problem that might not be solved that easily. Given that Latinos impact society and local communities to such a degree, why would the media give a one-sided narrative of this population that results in the prolonging of negative and unconfirmed beliefs (illegals are violent criminals)? The language barrier and the notion that people breaking the law shouldn't be given a fair representation in the media are copout reasons for why the media does a poor job. The truth comes from the existence of diversity in the news room, or lack thereof - if enough Latinos and Hispanics are employed by media, then they can reach this "impenetrable" demographic.

Also, just in case you were wondering whether Mexicans prefer to be called "Latino" or "Hispanic" because you might've noticed I used both terms interchangeably, here is a helpful link to understanding the social and political reasons for the terms.

Below is a dispersion graphic for the Latino population in 1980 and 2007. What are we gonna do with all these violent criminals?

6.17

How do the media, stereotypes and discrimination relate to each other? I'll take a crack at it based what I've learned about the media's role in society and the agenda-setting theory.

A. the media --> stereotypes --> discrimination

or

B. stereotypes --> the media --> discrimination

or

C. stereotypes --> discrimination --> the media

A. The media gives meaning and definition to code words, which enter the public lexicon for everyday use via the mass dissemination of information. Through convention, society connects these code words with people's behaviors, appearances and beliefs. These code words then elicit positive, negative and neutral feelings for whatever artifact they represent. Code words are easy to trigger, easy to use and require little mental work to link the meaning of the word to whatever the user wants it to represent in reality. "Lazy," "slow," "egghead," "airhead" and "stingy" are negative code words that become prejudices when connected with a type of people. From A, the media is responsible for the birth of stereotypes, which the public abuses to its petulant desire.

B. People are predisposed to stereotypes, living their lives with "little biases" and mentally tagging everything they see in a normative scale of good, bad and indifference. Boys like violence, girls like cute = not strange. Boys like cute, girls like violence = strange. All societies have this, they are called social norms, or how we expect people within a group to behave in predictable ways. When people think or behave in ways that deviate from the norm, the media absorbs the information, synthesizes it and releases it to the public while giving it context by framing the stories.

Framing is a social theory involving a collection of stereotypes. Framing gives stories significance and "relateability" (not a word, but it makes sense).

Once the media distributes these popular stereotypes, people who previously had been unaware or indifferent of some stereotypes begin recognizing it because of its ubiquity. If people only have the media to inform them about some stereotypes while lacking direct experience to give them a better understanding of certain people, attitudes or behaviors against how they are portrayed in the media, then these people may combine their own predisposed feelings with the possibly narrow interpretation of a subject presented by the media. If these feelings are negative, then it will be reinforced by the media and become strengthened discriminatory beliefs and practices.

C. People have predisposed feelings about other people based on limited experience and understanding. These feelings serve as the foundation for negative judgment and treatment of other people. The media's role is simply to generate news stories that reflect this behavioral process in society through impartial and rigid reporting of the facts without playing an active role in correcting the destructive happenings resulting from discrimination.

Which one is the most appealing - A, B or C? Is there a D, or an E, where the terms can be re-arranged even further? Is there another important term besides these three that should be in the discussion? Are the options too grossly simplified for such a complex subject?

6.11

My parents raised me in a gender-neutral manner. There were no influencing me toward playing sports, getting dirty and being emotionally strong. They adopted a fairly Laissez-faire philosophy with how they taught me values and making goals for myself - there was no typical strict Asian family environment that emphasized schoolwork all the time that I hear about. I played board games, rode bikes, played kickball, tried to learn how to swim, flew kites, build model air planes, read pop-up books and played with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (I had all of them, and Splinter, and the Yellow Bus that shot cannons you could fit all four turtles inside, and a Rafael Halloween costume with plastic nunchucks, and Power Rangers...oh yes, Power Rangers). Very gender-neutral. I have no qualms about how I turned out because it allowed me to explore and do many things, make a lot of mistakes (of which there are some I'm still paying for) and learn how the world works on my own. My parents didn't push anything on me.

My brother, on the other hand, very much wanted to instill in me aspects of tough masculinity and rugged individualism. He'd push me around, verbally slash me and tested how I would react to adversity. He never took it easy on me on anything and his competitiveness, to this day, I can say helps to make me mentally stronger than I used to be as a "young punk" in high school. He's 13 years my elder and twice my size so it was no picnic defending myself. I love him for that. He's 35 now and has a 4-month-old boy, whom my brother has not instilled the typical gender male attitude. My brother and his wife have decorated the baby's room with green, bought clothes that are mostly white and red and treat the 'lil booger like precious gold, if gold could poop and sneeze. I guess things are different when you have your own child.

6.10

I just came back from church. I'm not religious, but church isn't new to me. Most of my friends are Christian and I went to church regularly in high school. As I was sitting there watching my friend lead a youth group, the thought crossed my mind about how more Asian-Americans are becoming Christian, via large-scale missionary work being done overseas or just as a result of assimilation of Asians into Western culture. The concept of privilege is abundant in most forms of religion, regardless of how inclusive the type of religion claims to be. In Christianity, a tenet is that we are all born sinners but only Christians have the privilege of sin, based on its effect from having a relationship with God, knowing God's will and violating God's will.

In class today I gave a definition of privilege as "entitlement received not based on merit," and that's not right. Entitlement alone involves me receiving benefits and access to things that most others don't and that works independently of the concept of merit. In fact, merit and privilege aren't mutually exclusive, according to Jensen, the University of Texas professor. There are instances when someone whose privileges gives them access to resources which allows them to reach high levels of success. But they still wouldn't have gotten to that level without hard work and real dedication. Hence, privilege and merit are correlated, but is not necessarily part of a causal relationship.

To speak from experience, and to garner a better understanding of privilege in general, the class mentioned cases when racial minorities could benefit from this principle, such as the existence of black privilege. I also mentioned Asian-American privilege, but I didn't know where to go with that. Perhaps I feel professors and employers respect my abilities based on the presumption that most Asian-Americans are respectful, thoughtful and hard working. I think I am those things. I hope I am. I also would hope no one would give me the benefit of the doubt before I could get a chance to prove myself.

I don't feel privileged. I'm aware of the concept at the moment I walked into church, class, work and an IHOP restaurant today, but I don't recognize it. It is invisible, afterall.

But it's unclear how sure we can be that a circumstance we are in involves an indefinite case of ourselves, or someone else, being the benificiery of an advantage that most other people do not get. Maybe I can tell that the Mayor of Oklahoma City is going to be treated with respect and receive the best customer service when his family walks into a mall outlet store looking for some clothes. But pinpointing race as the source of someone benefitting from some systematic, unconscious public exertion of subtle discrimination leads to me making seemingly incredible accusations toward well-meaning people. For example, while sitting at the IHOP with six of my friends (all white) and giving our orders to the waitress (also white), I was the last person whose order she took. Subtle, unconscious display of white privilege? Or the waitress was just taking orders counter-clockwise of everyone at the table, and I was sitting at the far left?

Again, it seems like kind of a reach to assume the former. I'm sure we can provide numerous examples of when we feel like our exclusion, or our being singled-out could be a result of race or gender discrimination that is very subtle (and perhaps not even intentional), but how can we be so sure? McIntosh's knapsack theory is applicable in some cases, but I tend to rationalize events pretty hardcore. The IRS is going to audit my tax returns because they might find some inconsistency in the numbers (#19 in the knapsack). I'm never asked to speak for all Asian-Americans because I'm young, inexperienced and shouldn't feel like I can speak for anybody (#15). I can't find any Asian music in a music store because I don't like Asian music, and most people from my demographics aren't going to find it easy to locate mid-1800s baroque classical symphonies anyway because CD stores don't market that type of music to the 18-25 Oklahoman who bookmarks PitchforkMedia and the music review list from MetaCritic.com (#9). Is there a way to be sure we're a victim of racial or gender privilege? I'm not talking about being aware of the problem large scale, hardly anyone is going to deny the problem exists, but we can't fix the problem unless we can locate it.

In class today, Professor Flippin-Wynn referred to a personal preference for avoiding the term "minority" as it implies inferiority from the definition of minority as "less than." Never heard of that. I always thought "minority" and "majority" were simply inherent binaries, the former meaning "numerically fewer than the dominant majority" with majority to indicate instances when X is more than half of the total sum. Also, the AP Style Guideline states to use "less than" and "more than." I'll keep in mind what the professor said regardless.

6.9.09

To start out, I'd recognize race as a form of self-identity; it's a part of us we choose to identify with the most. It's a concrete enough of an idea that is easily identifiable and universally accessible, but also encompassing many elements from other forms of self-identification to the point of abstractness. It's a type of classification of the human population that includes hereditary traits, like skin color, and environmental things, like nationality. Some people say race is an idea societies or governments create to generically identify humans, while others say it's got a justifiable root in biology. I'm fine with the latter viewpoint as long as race identities are flexible enough to include everyone who wants to identify themselves with a group - that's harder than it sounds, I know. I was born in Vietnam but am an American citizen. Am I "Asian," "Southeast Asian," "East Asian," "Asian/Pacific Islander" or "Asian-American"? My cousin has a white dad and a Vietnamese mother - is he Asian-American or Caucasian, and can he choose (and where is the option for both)? Which race does Tiger Woods identify with more, his Thai mother or his African-American father?

Although this isn't an anthropology course, I hope to come closer to finding the answers.

With regards to the relationship between race and the media, I feel this is complicated. Not complicated as in "some type of difficult problem to solve," although that's certainly true; but complicated because I feel there are two ways the two concepts relate with each other and both ways involve layers of discussion.

The first issue is how racial identities are portrayed in Western media. Some people argue that the media perpetuates stereotypes by assigning more coverage and prominence to stories that reflect the racial tension and division that exists in society. A white N.Y. policeman shooting an off-duty black officer. A Latino gang declaring genocidal war on a black neighborhood in California. A racially insensitive and sexist billion-dollar owner of a professional basketball team on the brink of federal investigation. Is race relevant to any of these stories? Are not the meat of each story a police officer overstepping his boundaries of "to serve and protect," gang violence and a high-profile business owner being investigated? It's hard to say how the media should treat such types of news coverage, and a discussion involving journalistic impartiality may become relevant about whether or not the media even needs to promote diversity or racial tolerance - if the media's job is report what happens, and what happens are events involving race as a central theme, then how could people advocate that the media should frame stories one way or the other without violating journalistic principles?

If a white cop attacks a black civilian, should the media A) ignore the issue of race and focus on the story on police brutality, B) involve the issue of race, but avoid editorializing, C) fully frame the story around race by purposefully asking witnesses and getting quotes about the black/white topic, or D) treat the event like if it was any other story on a typical news day. My point is that it's easy to say we don't like how the media portrays race without providing a superior gameplan.

The second issue of the relationship between race and the media is diversity represented in the news room. Regardless of whether one feels the media has some type of role or responsibility to help society progress by doing more than plain reporting the facts, there can be no argument that the best news rooms and the most effective communicators reflect and empathize with the consumers of news. The first thing that popped into my mind when Joe Hights presented the hypothetical of a news station represented by only a 9 percent rate of minorities to non-minorities is whether or not this lack of diversity purposefully reflects the consumers and citizens to which that news station is targeting. If the newspapers are selling to a market made up of 90 percent non-minorities, then why should the ratio of minorities to non-minorities in the news room change? Why isn't it fine the way it is? The reality is that this is rarely the case, and most media outlets reach a wider range of audience that simply requires the employees of the respective media platforms to understand the consumers of news, and in most cases, the consumers are going to be diverse more often than they are not and so the news room needs to reflect this. Race is just one part of diversity, but it's a big part.

For what it's worth, Tiger Woods has made few public statements about his race besides mentioning how proud he is of both his ethnic backgrounds. He also thinks racial divisions will eventually disappear as the world's population integrates to the point of meaningless racial boundaries. That's debatable, but it supports how complicated and uneasy the topic of race makes people feel.