Breaking Down the Falsities of Texas Public School Social Studies' Curriculum

An original version posted on 5/18/2010 as "Deconstructing the Texas Calls for Social Studies Overhauls" @ Examiner.com

The past few months have seen an uptick in proposals across two states to radically reform public State education in Social Studies and US History.

Officially signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on May 11th, Arizona banned ethnic studies classes in public education because of what supporters say are displays of "ethnic chauvanism."

Most controversial in the law are provisions which ban courses "designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group" and "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." The courses affected include Mexican-American/Chicano Studies, African-American Studies, and Asian Studies, which according to Tom Horne, Superintendent of Schools in Arizona, "divides students up, just like the old South."

If public schools do not adhere to law, they stand to lose state funding. The LA Times reported that the Tucson Unified School District's 14-year old Chicano studies program was a main target of the state law.

The latest call for reform for social studies reform will be decided in Texas tomorrow on May 19th when the State Board of Education will vote on whether to pass a list of proposed changes.

The Texas Board of Education released its 5th and Final draft of required Social Studies curriculum for public schools in April. Much contention has arisen over highlighting the influence of religion on the founding fathers with a notable de-emphasis on Thomas Jefferson's influence and the "unintended consequences" of big government programs such as the New Deal or the War on Poverty. Read the document here.

Also included is a call for a "Celebrate Freedom" week.

Perspective: Texas Proposal aims at selective truth

I grew up learning that the truth was the most important thing to aim for in history.

As I've come up in my education, I've learned that history isn't necessarily about telling one objective truth, but about rounding up primary sources and having subjects share their stories about events.

They used parts of American history to invoke a sense that America is rooted in exceptionality, or in other words "being better" than other people. I am quite sure that this type of thinking hints at a truth, but I am not sure that it represents the entire truth.

History is dynamic, always being made, and contains an infinitude of stories to be understood in one neat way.

If American history can be understood as a big collection of snapshot pictures, Texas is taking only the most flattering portraits of American policy and its conservative bases, but catching only invasive paparazzi voyeuristic ones of liberal and international views.

The view presents US history as every event in naturally and eventually agreeing upon or evolving into whatever happens to be the status quo.

The Texas brand of social studies is bent on suggesting that the origins of equality were already implemented in the document. They had been trying to say that the Declaration of Independence which was declared in 1776 was really the stimulus behind undoing slavery in 1865, how it allowed for women's rights movements in the 1920s, and the driver behind diversity we came to accept in law by 1965.

Saying that origins of equality were already in the Declaration of Independence gives off the impression that equal opportunity was all only a matter of rationalized legislation, like changes were all going to happen anyway, minimizing the struggles of different peoples.

The document is based on minimization of the negative impacts of US Foreign policy and conservative domestic policy.

They really want to call capitalism, "free enterprise" in attempt to negate its negative connotations. If were going to play this game of calling everything by a more positive name, let's call communism, socialism or Marxism by their intention-based positive phrase too: "people's needs-based system."

The way they plan to represent other countries is particularly troubling in their selective application of certain loaded and controversial terminology. Bothersome is their selective employment of the word "imperialism."

Traditionally, "imperialism" has been used to describe US foreign policy in the turn of the 19th century into the 20th century. However, notice how imperialism is something only the Japanese do.

• "...explain the major causes and events of World War II, including the German invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Japanese imperialism, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Normandy landings, and the dropping of the atomic bombs."

This clause is buried deep in the document and very specific. I only read about Japanese imperialism and a broad "European" imperialism. I didn't read anything about American, France, German, Italian, Belgian, Portugese or Spanish imperialism. It is merely German "invasion" of Poland and Soviet Union, no mention of the driving ideology of Nazism, while the Japanese take on a label of "imperialism" as if Japanese people were inherently imperialistic.

Equally troubling is the framing of the Palestine and Israel conflict. They use loaded terminology to circle Palestinians and Arabs, nonchalantly labeling them "terrorists" and pretending that State of Israel wasn't established under much controversy. By framing it as the Arabs rejecting the state of Israel, it makes it seem as if the Arabs were the problem.

The only things the Texas State Board of Education wants students to openly analyze and question are the people and movements that they decidedly don't like. For example, the document calls for "analyzing the unintended consequences of affirmative action and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society." There is also a call to "Analyzing the effectiveness of the approach" taken by the Black Panthers versus the "philosophically persuasive" tone of Martin Luther King Jr."

It's peculiar how "consequences" and "effectiveness" are a cause for concern with equal opportunity and civil rights programs.

While given the freedom to analyze the tactics used in civil rights era movements, there doesn't appear to be any similar mandate to analyze the "unintended consequences" of the "conservative resurgeance" of the 1980s or the mandated "Celebrate Freedom Week" itself.

The "conservative resurgeance" was a period that saw Ronald Reagan triple the national debt by cutting taxes while cutting social programs. His great work was being able to firmly instill into the American consciousness the image of the black, undeserving "welfare queen", a distasteful and ultimately divisive image upon which a generation of conservative and tea partiers have used to drum up distaste towards social programs.

Texas: Giving a blueprint for Eugenicist thought

The image of the welfare queen is still alive and well. It's an image of dependency, laziness, and all-around incompetence that continually informs popular perception and legislative decision-making.

The image pervades the way Texas plans to do social studies and teach people about America in the 21st century. They do not give people of color or perceived predecessors any credit for their own advances. It's as if any advancement they have made was a result of "other people's" actions, which by default tends to mean "white people."

For example, when talking about the cultures whose people appear to descend from what is now known as Mexico, the only way to understand them is as outgrowths of people prior to them. The people prior to them are Greece and Rome.

• "...compare the major political, economic, social, and cultural developments of the Maya, Inca, and Aztec civilizations and explain how prior civilizations influenced their development"

Why is there no need to study how prior civilizations influenced the development of Greece or Rome?

Its as if Greece or Rome were people who self-generated themselves and fathered all our ideas, hence fitting this narrative of self-sufficiency coming from one race, the White one.

While the white people were thinking up great ideas in the West, the sparsely populated brown-skinned peoples were just waiting around to be inspired by them.

If white people were the originators of ideas and it is presented that way, it follows that rationally and naturally they would be entitled to ownership over the land; everything in their view was earned fairly. This mentality follows that minimal benefit can be gained from immigration or the infusion of different cultures, which has actually shown to be the opposite in some studies.

They want students to learn that everything of consequence emerged from Europe without any influence or contact from any other group of people whatsoever.

Never mind that Islam and Arabics, some heavy targets in popular American media today for their way of thinking, were responsible for innovations in the medieval era, making contributions to what we label now as "Western medicine." Never mind that the very number system we use today would not have been possible with Roman numerals, but also took Eastern thought to come up with the idea of zero to make the number system work.

The idea of dependency where people from minority cultures need to wait around for white males to come to the rescue is reflected in the way they represent contemporary battles for equal opportunity.

• "Explain actions taken by people to expand economic opportunities and political rights, including those for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as women, in American society"

This provision reads as if women, racial, ethnic, or religious minorities took little or action on their own behalf. They needed "people" to swoop in save the day and are ultimately dependent on majority action.

The study of US geography also carries a Eugenicist bent.

Specifically, they want students to identify "the effects of population growth and the impacts on physical environment." For over 100 years, this has been a pseudo-scientific way to criticize immigrant populations.

If they were really concerned about the physical environment, children should learn that resources tend to be concentrated in the hands of very few people, and continued hyper-consumption combined with a culture of disposal and landfills, those kind of human activities are the real harm to the physical environment, not necessarily certain demographic groups.

For more analysis of the Texas curriculum proposal:

NY Times deconstructing Texas

The Nation deconstructing Texas

The Nation deconstructing Conservatives who use history

We Hold These Rights Inalienable: The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Ignorance

An original version posted on 11/23/2007 as "We Hold These Rights Inalienable: The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Right to be Ignorant: Briding Racially Ignorant and Racially Conscious" @ throwascrewinit.blogspot.com

Nooses are everywhere nowadays. Not just in Jena. But also on teachers' office hour rooms at Ivy League schools. Sold at a store near you in New Jersey, Connecticut. Sold online. As Haloween decorations in a predominantly white neighborhood near you! Who says modernity has elipsed our good old fashioned family values? Were once again partying like its 1899!

People nationwide after the Jena 6 incident have been defending their right to display nooses when and wherever they want, particularly during the past Halloween season.

Another Halloween dummy

Latest Noose Incident

Nooses in Home Depot

These latest incidents in noose-hanging are nothing but a platform for them to say what they've been saying since people of color first got civil rights in the United States.

Far as they are concerned, racism is over except for a few lingering isolated incidents and is actually instigated more by blacks. They say that blacks and liberals, and racial militants call everything racist. If asked to respond to someone they perceive as a liberal or racial militant, they counter that "racism is in the eyes of the beholder." They also complain about how society is so politically correct.

If you hear/read that someone believes that "racism is in the eyes of the beholder", for them they believe that racial militants will label anything racist. That statement is full of more bull than Pamplona. They think what racial militants do in noting racial incidents is arbitrary. They are generally skeptical when an act is argued to have racial undertones and racial implications.

To support this eyes of the beholder argument, they often speak of how complex it is to know what's racist and what's not.

With that perceived complexity in determining racism, it then becomes difficult for even the average person to know what wrongs they are commiting at any given moment. With that difficulty, it follows that they should just be absolved of any responsibility and most importantly that they don't get any of the consequences associated with doing something stupid.

So this is how they come to defend people who continually display their nooses as proud symbols despite the incidents at Jena, and Columbia University: they say those selling nooses and displaying them at their neighborhoods probably didn't know what they were doing.

In effect, ignorantly displaying nooses during Haloween was a way of getting a free pass for people to "express themselves." "Ignorantly" is the key word.

It's an effective way of breaking with what they perceive is a "politically correct" society. The logic goes: if you don't know that something is racist, then you should be excused because you just don't know better. I'm no law professor emeritus at the moment, but in any other field, if you don't know something, wouldn't it be considered negligence.

Following these types of comments for a while, even before these string of incidents, I've come to a realization. Those who argue for the freedom of expression by the noose-displayers absolutely hate the thought of being considered a racist (which I guess is a sign of progress).

I do think most of them do not want to be racist, but what they're fighting for in fighting FOR the free display of nooses is...the right to be ignorant. The right to be ignorant...of course without incurring any of its consequences.

There's an old saying that goes along the lines of "the less you know the happier you are." Elegantly stated this is the classic "ignorance is bliss" statement.

Ignorance in general is looked down upon, but in reality we all want it and think we need it as a form of "release."

It's one of life's counter-intuitive ironies at work...we want to be all-knowing, smart, and considered responsible but if that fails, in our less structured world outside of employment, we also want the right to let loose...to be ignorant stupid and irresponsible...without suffering the consequences.

Part of the appeal for non-stars like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, etc. is that it seems like they are allowed to act as stupidly and ignorant as possible and still get away with it. Most importantly they do it without much consequence, which is why it was so shocking and the same time, exciting for people to see Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie go to jail.

Plenty of Americans want to re-create part of that in their own vapid lives. They want to break away from all the information and understanding and caring. They want to break away from what they perceive is political correctness. Essentially they're fighting political correctness as part of a bigger societal need to just be ignorant.

Racial humor is one arena/space that fits this description perfectly: people can be ignorant and not care, and most of the time not incur any real consequence. Inherent in these incidents is that people want to feel something real, express something raw without feeling the consequences. They generally expect not to get called out. But when they do get called, they call people like me "too politically correct."

Whether it's printing up tired ass Busted T's t-shirt about Juan-on-Juan basketball or New Mexico being Cleaner than Real Mexico or displaying a noose these incidents are driven by a rebellion against the perceived politically correctness of society.

Abercrombie & Fitch

Two Wongs Don't Make A Right

On college campuses, there are strings of theme parties about stereotypes of other cultures.

Theme Party

Theme party 1

On online forums, millions of anonymous people can be as racist and stereotype as they want. Possibilities are endless. One look at an LA Times' online forum about immigration issues, homicide issues, would probably make you re-think your position of LA being some kind of hotbed of liberty, equality, and acceptance.

What promotes them to not care is that race probably isn't an issue for the people who so flippantly disregard incidents like Jena as child's play. If you think it's all in humor, consider that people probably think it's humorous too when they draw or graffiti a swastika.

For them race and ethnicity is not something that they are made aware of on a daily basis, so they can be as careless as they want. They actually once again puts them in a privileged position of being there only to make judgments, unless of course they get called out.

But for people of color who are likely made aware that they are different, that they are minorities, it's not so flippantly disregarded. By all means you can do it, but you're probably going to be called out for it.

As mentioned before, we live in a time and place of vast information exchange.

People use information to make decisions, including those people in power. We've learned in history how disinformation and stereotypes lying within power players and the public have continually hurt folks of color from gaining admission to schools, buying houses, and getting jobs.

People's perception of things count for a lot these days, especially when all it takes is a simple "bad feeling" about someone for them not to get a job, a house, a loan, etc.

We don't want people to be bringing these messages to people en masse: that it's OK to hang nooses, that's its OK to have racial stereotype theme parties, or even that it's OK to have these stupid ass orientalized, other-ized, T-shirts. This is stuff that while you might get a kick out of, just reinforces people of color's less than human-ness.

We don't get much representation in politics and media, and it's disturbing that the only things that circulate widely is stuff that objectifies our cultures and distances us from other people. I really hope that fuckheads engaging in these kinds of acts aren't going to be decisionmakers, but it's inevitable that quite a few will.

We want to be seen as humans, eating, breathing, shitting, sexing just like you. The way people of color in this country have been disenfranchised has been through skin color (while another color has been promoted on that basis), and for liberal people our color, our ethnicity, our heritages are the the only thing that make us interesting in their eyes.

In all likelihood, those who did hang the nooses at Jena knew what they were doing, but they were secretly hoping that they get away with it. Their motivation is no different than various idiots who print Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirts about Chinese people, Busted T-shirts who print other ignorant bullshit about Africa --- to fight what they perceive is political correctness so they can have their space to act ignorant without consequences. Only they want to do it at the expense of people of color.

All this is like kicking someone in the shin underneath the table during a meeting and hoping that you can get away with it.

If we are getting our shins continually kicked, how would you expect us to respond?

Solutions for Change After Compton Cookout

An original version posted on 3/1/2010 as "Recapping the aftermath of Compton Cookout and solutions for change" @ Examiner.com

The aftermath of the Compton Cookout organized by students at UCSD has seen a flurry of responses.

Responses have included: a student calling blacks ungrateful on campus television, a protest led by the Black Student Union, plans for a "Compton Cookout Part Deux" and the discovery of a noose at a UCSD library.

The events at UCSD may have touched off a wave of crimes at other college campuses.

Last week, Kris Gregorian, an editor of a controversial campus newspaper said on campus television after the Compton Cookout, "You should be thankful you ungrateful n****." Later after his segment was aired, a piece of cardboard was later found in the studio with the words "Compton lynching" written on it.

Later in the week, Mike Randazzo, organizer of the Compton Cookout, announced plans for a repeat of the Compton Cookout, "We pretty much want people to just choose a culture and harmlessly poke fun at it."

"On Cinco de Mayo, we have parties making fun of Mexicans; on Veterans Day, we make fun of veterans (yes, the same veterans who uphold our rights to free speech); on St. Patrick's Day we make fun of the Irish. Everyone gets made fun of out of jest now, not hate,” the invitation read."

The Black Student Union Protest responded to the week's events organizing a teach-in chanting "Real Pain, Real Action." The teach-in drew over 300 students and lead to a student walk-out.

The latest incident happening late Thursday night involves the discovery of a noose at a UCSD library at around 10:30 PM. An unnamed student has since confessed to the incident, claiming she did not think that "hanging the noose would be a big deal."

A wave of incidents has since been touched off at UC Davis and the University of Missouri.

At UC Davis there have been two instances of race and ethnicity related vandalization. A swastika was carved into a Jewish student's dorm room earlier last week. On Saturday, there was discovery of vandalism at the UC Davis Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender building.

At the University of Missouri, balls of cotton were found strewn together in front of the University's Black Cultural Center. The strewn cotton has significant association to associations of slavery.

Perspective: Why Compton Cookout was not that funny

The party organizers were not intending to harm groups of people, but intention doesn't need to be present to actually harm individuals or groups of people. That's the very definition of "negligent."

However, the fact that it was a party which was planned, ultimately garners little sympathy here. These kids throwing racial parties, products of the 7th-ranked public university in the US News College rankings anticipated such controversy.

People need to recognize that organizing racial theme parties such as the Compton Cookout were not simply mistakes made by simple slips of the tongue. These individuals made deliberate, poor decisions and need to be called out for it each and every time they do organize a similar gathering or event.

I love off-the-cuff jokes and humor as much as the next person, but I can't find Compton Cookout, south of the border, white trash, or Eurotrash parties that funny.

Maybe it's because I know the "ghetto culture" wasn't something fabricated by MTV and merely popularized by rap music. It is a culture of people bred in response to centuries of segregation from advancement and opportunity. It is a symbol of inequality, survival, and ongoing struggle that was created by centuries of logic and policy that excluded black people.

These "ghetto", racialized theme parties puts out to the public that it's acceptable to trivialize products of struggle from different communities.

I know that the theme party to be thrown by Randazzo encourages a mindset that we all need to laugh at ourselves. I agree, laughter is the shortest distance between two people.

But it's hard to see how a fraternity full of white guys taking elements of black culture they only know through TV and computer monitors, is actually laughing at "themselves."

Advice to Compton Cookout organizers: equal opportunity offending is a horrible solution

Party organizer Mike Randazzo has served up the argument that these racial theme parties are an attempt to treat every race equally. They would do this by offending every race or ethnicity --- when I was in college this was called "equal opportunity offending." Seems to draw a lot on the methods of Borat, a movie I absolutely abhored.

The problem however is that this type of offending tends to not to actually be an "equal offender."

The idea of equal opportunity offending is essentially a justification to fight for the right to be ignorant.

Yes, there are so-called "Euro-trash" and "white trash" parties, but they are very specific to certain sub-cultures dominated by white people. If a big percentage of people were white trash or Euro-trash, there would probably be more outrage of those parties by those populations.

Through television, newspapers, radio, and our schooling, we have learned that white Americans are so varied, so unique, and carry such a diversity of opinion. Because they and everyone else absorbing US media have learned that they are so unique, many including themselves perceive their racial and cultural identities are essentially meaningless to the outside world.

With meaningless racial and cultural identities, they get the idea that race and ethnicity is something that could easily be ignored and either turned on or off.

In contrast, people of color tend to be recognized in popular media and work mostly for their cultural differences, whether real or not.

In news reports you see the labels of ethnicity demarcating an individual. You always see the labels "African-American" or "Latino" used to demarcate individuals, and that's even when there is no missing person or suspect on the loose. However, you rarely see the labels "Caucasian-American", or "white American" to describe an individual's background.

As it is, people of color are often perceived by decisionmakers like job interviewers to be monolithic thinkers with no variance, no diversity of opinion, and no uniqueness other than the color of their skin and accompanying culture. It's as if their diversity is the full extent of the uniqueness and talent that they bring.

"Equal opportunity offending" in the form of parties and tropes tends to hit Americans of color harder than white Americans. No matter how much they try to escape their stereotypes, people of color are linked more tightly by the outside world to the stereotypes of their race and ethnicity. As a result of this closeness, they tend to feel the mocking of their ethnicities and races a lot more.

Equal opportunity offending communicates to the word that its still acceptable to look down upon people of color using old familiar tropes that have denied people of color opportunities.

In the meanwhile, this equal opportunity offending offers less relevant tropes for the vastly varied white cultures and ethnicities. This ends up stinging no white person and confirms belief for them that making fun of race and ethnicity is essentially harmless.

Solution: We would build better racial understanding if we assume the best in people

While the idea of "racial and cultural sensitivity" means well, it is a somewhat ineffective idea to describe what is needed in working towards racial understanding.

"Racial sensitivity" for many young white Americans has meant a feeling to need to walk on eggshells when speaking with people of color, careful never to offend. The uncertainty many white Americans feel when dealing with people of color and race and ethnicity leads to this pointlessly rebellious "equal opportunity offending", first-ammendment-asserting Compton Cookout-type backlash.

"Racial sensitivity" is antithetical to "making fun" of something.

People of color suggesting "racial and cultural sensitivity" as opposed to "making fun" makes it seem like people of color have no sense of humor and that we absolutely allow no room for any mistake around them.

One solution to addressing these racially-themed parties and incidents is simple: tell people why exactly it isn't funny. Emphasis on "why exactly" as a way towards rational explanation.

It isn't funny because I understand that many black Americans are struggling still. These stereotypes floating in people's thoughts aren't bound to help anyone in job interviews and decisionmaking, and frankly it isn't my place to judge or make light of what I see people struggle through. Even amongst the best intentioned, bias does play a role when evaluating people of color.

I feel like there would have been no "Compton Cookout" or at least, less justifications of the event, had these kids been familiar with understanding the connections between events, policies, attitudes in the past with today's events, behaviors, and attitudes.

The public needs to understand that there are reasons why people live the way they live, and do the things they do. As James Loewen argued in his classic Lies My Teacher Told Me, people need to understand that the "effects" we observe in the world today all have "causes."

Studying history's many perspectives and establishing connections to today allows people to build on the assumption that there is logic, rationality, intelligence in individuals caught up in so-called "ghetto-cultures" and basically all cultures.

However, if you don't want to learn history and just want to build better racial and cultural understanding, here's something simple: Assume that people of color or white people or anyone with a different background is just like you and have done the best they could, given their circumstances.

Forget education levels, current employment status, assume that all people regardless of background are trying their best at something.

Assumptions we hold of groups of people direct how we see and ultimately understand people.

For example, if you assume that white Americans are evil, then you're likely to keep looking for examples of white people being evil. But if you run on the assumption that white Americans are trying their best, then you'll be more likely to accept and understand that they are essentially just individuals who are not intentionally keeping people down.

Inversely, if you assume that black Americans are lazy, then you're likely to keep looking for examples of black people being lazy. But if you run on the assumption that black Americans are trying their best, then you'll be more likely to accept and understand how hard it is to move up in America.

If these UCSD kids assumed the best of "ghetto people" meaning they assumed that black people were doing the best they could with what they had,they would instead simply see another group of people trying to get by in this even funnier thing called life.

They would not even see such superficialities such as "limited vocabulary" or "speaking loud" as anything particularly noteworthy, interesting, shocking, or attributable to "ghetto chicks."

Everyone has moments when they have "limited vocabulary" or "speak loud."

With nothing noteworthy, interesting, shocking about another culture, there would be less of a pressing "need" or a burning desire to throw parties as if those superficialities were something unique or interesting.

One tangible step people can take towards assuming the best in people is understanding that no matter what Bill Cosby thinks, "ghetto" language or what is referred to as black English is not broken English with mistakes.

It has its own pronunciation rules and logic. Perhaps a speaker of the language displays a lack of college education, but it does not necessarily mean a lack of knowledge or competency.

However because people conflate "education" with "knowledge", Black English speakers are perceived to be lacking knowledge, therefore competency, and subsequently, are looked down upon as speaking "broken" English.

As was stated by Texas A&M Sociologist Joe R. Feagin, "Language mocking and subordination are not about standards for speaking as much as about determining that some people are not worth listening to and treating as equals." Language is simply a tool that people use to understand each other, nothing more nothing less.

If we assumed that people were trying their best given their circumstances, we'd be past feeling suspicious of other people.

If more people assumed the best of different people, the question we'd attempt to answer would be past the warring stage, where people are battling every day trying to scream the existence of racism.

If we assumed the best of people, we'd already know that it happens, and we'd focus on addressing how and why racial division happens, and negotiating how we can all come to some kind of agreement that permits even exchanges across racial, ethnic, and cultural divides.

Responding to the Justifications of the Compton Cookout

An original version posted on 2/19/2010 as "Public debate over racism erupts after student party" @ Examiner.com

Last week, a few students attending the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) held a theme party called the "Compton Cookout."

The Facebook invitation, sent out by some members of the Fraternity Pi Kappa Alpha urged male participants to wear large T-shirts, jerseys, sunglasses. Most controversially however, the invitation included a description of "ghetto chicks"

"Ghetto chicks have a very limited vocabulary, and attempt to make up for it, by forming new words, such as "constipulated", or simply cursing persistently, or using other types of vulgarities, and making noises, such as "hmmg!", or smacking their lips, and making other angry noises,grunts, and faces. The objective is for all you lovely ladies to look, act, and essentially take on these "respectable" qualities throughout the day." Read the Full Invitation

UCSD Chancellor Mary Anne Fox responded with a statement condemning the event and affirming principles of community. Read here for UCSD's Statement.

Because the party was not affiliated with any student organization, UCSD was not able to take further action.

Pi Kappa Alpha issued a statement denying any involvement. Read here for Pi Kappa Alpha's Statement.

While the party has long ended and statements have been given, the issue has drawn enormous public responses. A majority of the responses have ranged from dismissal of the students behavior as an innocent act of fun, to condemning the students' behavior as an act of racism.

What do you think?

Reactions from 10News.com followed by commentary

Reactions asking why this party is still a big deal

"The actions of one individual who created the event page using his own poor judgment and inept choice of words should not reflect on any other person, group, organization, or community besides that one individual. And even so, only to a certain extent."

This type of racially-tinged event is nothing new on college campuses. It has happened before in Clemson, Tulane, Santa Clara, William Jewell College, the University of Chicago. It's not just one isolated event. One individual usually has a network of people supporting what he/she does, and they've learned it from somewhere. The trend does not come from "nowhere."

"This "compton cookout" event is not a sign that the world is beginning to spin backwards and racism is amongst us all again."

Quick, give me the exact time and place when racism even left us, I'd like to record this moment, just for history's sake.

"Does anyone see the absolute hypocrisy in this? So a bunch of students did something juvenile and had an offensive party. That's part of growing up."

Yes, and when you grow up, you get the appropriate reprimand for it. Don't forget that there's usually a reprimand when you do something "juvenile."

Reactions relating to media causing racism

"Clearly the way college students view African Americans is offensive to some. Where would they get these ideas? TV shows on MTV and BET? Spike Lee movies? Television stations that fascinate on ghetto behavior? Who knows...

It sure isn't from the 'frats'...."

No one says that racism originates with frats or even that frats are a new hotbed of hatred.

Media has something to do with these racism-driven stereotypes. However, it runs deeper than media. It's a lack of positive media, the segregation of neighborhoods and demographics.

"NOTE: The only folks making a big stink over this are the media and college administrators trying to cover their arses in the name of political correctness. As I said yesterday, sometimes it hurts to see how the rest of the world sees you. The party may have been in poor taste, but it was certainly a pretty good parody on black youth in America. Just drive through Compton (or Southeast San Diego), and tell me if you see anything different from what this party portrayed."

Firstly, not all black youth are the same. You wouldn't lump all white youth together and characterize them as one type of people. Secondly, Compton is actually not all black according to the 2000 Census, with 66% identifying as black, 42% identifying as Latino, and 11% identifying as white. The median income for a household in the family was $33,000 which is comparable to entire states such as Arkansas and Mississippi. Thirdly, I didn't know that you could understand groups of people, just by "driving through" their neighborhoods and looking at what they wear.

Somehow, I don't quite remember MLK saying judge people by the content of their clothing or their neighborhoods.

"The entire Hip Hop industry is "Ghetto-Themed" but it's OK; they're "keeping it real".
If you're a black college student, you're "embracing your roots".
If you're a white college student, you're a racist. HEY PARENTS: Is this the kind of hypocrisy and double standard you pay to have forced down your kids throats? Also, Hollywood and the music industry do not exactly try to glorify life in the trailer park, the way they do life in the hood."

The music that comes from the "ghetto" is just people talking about what they live. They are not "glorifying" the setting as much as they are "glorifying" the fact that they survived, and are now reaping the rewards.

If you pay attention to lyrics in certain songs, a lot of songs deal with making it from rough, humble beginnings, and the fact that struggles in those settings ultimately made them who they are and successful.

It's actually quite American --- ruggedly individual, material, and at times, very capitalistic.

"I’m not sure what is more funny.

The fact that these students are having a “Ghetto-Party” or that UCSD is promoting respect for the ghetto culture."

UCSD is not "promoting" respect for "ghetto culture," if there is such a thing. However, "ghetto" in the popular imagination has become code word for a "black person." The party's invitation said itself albeit tongue-in-cheek, "a celebration of black culture." The writer of the flyer made the connection that "ghetto" equalled "black."

If there is anything UCSD is promoting, it seems to be respect for people, in general, regardless of "culture". How's that for an idea?

Reactions ignoring the existence of racism in the event

"Racism is in the eye of the beholder"

The problem is that this type of thinking promotes the idea that racism is so subjective and so easily thrown around that racism is essentially meaningless and impossibly large to fight. All the burden of proof falls on the person who experiences it, without people really realizing that it's just as easy to deny it.

The vast majority of us are sick of how offended you are. Your self-esteem is not a concern in the real world, so grow [u]p and stop griping about everything.

This is not about being oversensitive or self-esteem. The debate is about improving the public imagery of people of color. The public imagery of people of color is very important because it's often times the only contact or real understanding that many people have of them. Public imagery informs making wise decisions based on actual merits rather than on stereotypes.

"Ghetto" relates to a segment of the population just as "redneck" refers to a segment of the population. When people think of "ghetto", they think of lower class blacks, and when they think of "redneck" they think of lower class whites. Not all blacks are "ghetto" no more than all whites are "rednecks". I was not at all offended, because these stereotypes do not apply to me, my family, or my friends.

While there are plenty of color who are not offended nor believe the stereotypes do not apply to them, those stereotypes and associations do affect how people think. Stereotypes and associations can affect how decisionmakers make decisions. For example, a Princeton study led by Sociologist Devah Pager showed that black and Latino people with exactly similar qualifications to white people got less than half the callbacks as their white counterparts. Another study by University of Chicago's Marianne Bertrand and MIT's Sendhil Mullainathan showed that black American names such as Tamika, Jamal were also far less likely to receive call backs than white-sounding names such as Carrie and Emily.

Perspective:

Many people have a simplistic idea of what "racism" is. It is not simply an intentional, obvious expression reduced to verbal abuse or obvious harrassment. It is also systematic exclusion from opportunities in schools, jobs, houses, and neighborhoods --- this form of racism is much harder to tell.

In the grand scheme of things, everyone will just look at this party as just a party.

However, the fact that there are over 100 pages of responses on 10News.com from many different viewpoints, it is clearly something that people feel the need to weigh in on. As mentioned above, these racial and ethnic theme parties on college campuses are already running wild in the public imagination.

Plenty of respondents have firmly asserted that this it was a party, but ultimately an act of light humor with no effect. Plenty of respondents have even somehow thrown Barack Obama into discussion as if this somehow mitigates all acts of racism. Plenty of other respondents have asserted the opinion that I'm inclined to agree with; that it was a bad judgment call, and contains elements of racism that is potentially harmful to people of color.

The party is clearly a springboard for discussion about the larger issue of racism. Respondents are arguing not about the party itself, but the implications of what it means for race.

Here's the part where people should pay attention:

Respondents from a progressive anti-racism perspective are criticizing the event mainly to affirm the public image of people of color. Protection of public image is not something done for vanity, but actually plays a big role in first impression of groups of people, especially groups from minority populations. Public imagery of white Americans has saturated traditional media outlets that it's harder to stereotype or tell what a white person is before meeting them.

First impression makes a lot of difference in the job market, especially for people of color. It does not help decisionmakers who allow access to schools, jobs, houses, and neighborhoods when stereotypes of people of color are running through their minds.

It is usually harder to try and understand someone rather than to simply dismiss and ignore them. It's more convenient to dismiss and ignore.

In a culture increasingly bent on information technology to get and give answers quickly, and constantly pressured by time, it's no wonder, many people give their opinions on it, but never go as far as understanding what the term "racism" means in today's contexts.

Oh, Now There Are Male Filipino Role Models

An original version posted on 11/16/2009 as "Filipino Male Role Models in the Present Day: Manny Pacquiao" @ AMMMO

It's a different day than what I experienced as a kid.

This is a day of high interconnectivity, instant and constant information from just about any source. I'm not just restricted to the TV and/or the newspapers to see what's big. Today its Google, blogs, tweets, message boards, UStream, youtube feeding me information about any and everything. With such interconnectivity comes more of an aura of global consciousness, and seamless integration of diverse-LOOKING individuals into advertisements, everyday news ephemera, and populist conversation.

That was very difficult to find as a kid. The news on TV, the people whose stories were talked about were all white people. I wondered why my family or other people of color wouldn't be interviewed by Dateline or 20/20. Guess we were not interesting enough? We weren't real Americans to be talked about? It was such a feeling of invisiblity.

As a preteen, pre-internet, as I mentioned in this post about Filipino male role models as a kid, I used to keep an eye out for Filipinos who "made it," that is Filipinos who've been seen by lots of people, doing something cool and somewhat positive.

I was cheering my ass off when I saw Ernie Reyes Jr. make a slight appearance in the Rock's crappy movie, the Rundown. And that was as a grown-ass 19-year old kid in 2003.

Why have "role models" in the first place?

Perhaps as a source of inspiration to do something.

Why a celebrity?

Because they're doing it for lots of people to see. It's nice seeing them being validated in the public and popular spheres like the newspaper articles, the TV shows, etc, and it makes me think, "hey I kind of have the same background as that guy, I can do like he does! Perhaps even better!"

Why did it have to be a celebrity emphasizing a racial or ethnic connection or kinship?

Because it's hard to imagine yourself doing something successfully and/or finding inspiration if the people doing what you want to do don't exactly look, talk, perhaps even think like you.

If you haven't seen people with whom you can identify with do something successful, you're probably susceptible to an inferiority complex --- you're not tall enough to play basketball, you don't talk white enough, you don't know much about politics, you don't sound that "professional" to really fit in with this program --- this is all stuff that has crossed my mind plenty of times.

While Filipinos were coming up in boxing, now that we have the mega-superstar Manny Pacquiao, there seems to be more Filipinos interested in boxing, and more opportunity in general for Filipinos to be in conversation. As a result of this fight, anyone think that these Filipino news reporters are even given the same platform on HBO to speak their opinion on what will happen in the fight?

If its true that I'd be susceptible to inferiority complexes if I don't see anyone someone I can identify with, why can't I just identify with anybody so I can get over my obssession with other Filipinos?

I'm not sure if its a conscious decision to choose anyone I can identify with.

I identify with plenty of people that are not Filipino, but usually only after I've come to learn their story. I particularly identify with Albert Einstein's story of working as a lowly patent clerk while drawing up his theory of relativity. I identify with Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel's story of being a humanities student entering the sciences and being acknowledged for his work on neurobiological memory. I can identify with Kirk Hinrich's habits on the basketball court, the Unabomber's thoughts on technology --- just as I get to know more stories, there's usually something I can identify with in another human person.

However, the ethnic category of "Filipino" instantly brings to those of us who've grown up with Filipinos a sense that we share the same story. "Instantly" is the key word. I don't have to go out and bump across an individual story to identify with if someone identifies themselves as Filipino (at least in the American context of where I sit), I can sort of understand where they might be coming from already, so I'm going to bust out my Tagalog and hopefully they can get what the hell I'm saying. It's exciting that there is now consciousness of the word "Filipino" worldwide and its associated stories can be brought out for the rest of the world to see. I never felt as much chill in the back in Lupang Hinirang until that group sang it before Pacquiao-Cotto.



Didn't have anything to do with the greatness off their voices, it's just a great feeling of having something that may act as a hindrance in some context (like fitting in with job interviews, social situations) being acknowledged and respected.

The Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao, the Filipino-Americans in the Jabbawockeez, that Filipino-Irish basketballer Erik Spoelstra, all are people I can sort of look up to as strong, cool, knowledgeable, and they all roughly come from where I come from. These are Filipinos who have appeared at one time or another on the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Good Morning America, Regis and whoever, ESPN, CNN, MTV, channels, networks watched by a diversity of people, who have to acknowledge our existence.

I can infer those Filipinos, Manny, the Jabbawockeez, and Erik Spoelstra probably may have eaten some adobo, are hardwired to play basketball, can bust some lines in Tagalog --- stuff that I do! And that's where I feel connected to their stories even though I might not know it as well as I do an Einstein or an Eric Kandel. The trajectory of their storylines as Filipinos are shooting towards success and widespread acceptance by other respected people in what they choose to do. Brian Urlacher, Magic Johnson, Derek Jeter, Mario Lopez, P.Diddy, Jay-Z, Mariah Carey, all people I've seen and admired at one point or another coming out to see this 5'6 cross-eyed, humble, happy, simple-seeming brown guy knock out another relatively small brown guy.

Said 5'6, cross-eyed, humble, happy, simpleton is now entering conversations and comparisons to icons like Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson --- boxers I've only known through pictures, stories, and myths. Whoever thought a lil ugly brown guy with boxing gloves could hold such sway and become so admired?