Contextualizing former president's anti-Asian rhetoric with rise in hate violence against Asian Americans.
Professor Sinner raising importance of restorative justice as a way to address hate violence. She doesn't say it's appropriate in all instances, but something that should be explored.
Now Hiroshi Motomura. I wish chair would stop mangling names when they introduce these speakers.
*Sinnar
I'm blaming autocorrect. Still my mistake not catching.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Short series on differential racialization as way to understand racial subordination in non-binary terms.
I write to counter conservative attempt to blame anti-Asian hate crimes on Black persons.
Binary, racial dyads:
White - non-White OR Black - non-Black 1/
As we think about additional racial groups, sometimes, race relations is thought of as race hierarchies, with White on top, Black on bottom, and other groups situated somewhere in-between.
But race hierarchies don't fully capture what is happening. Take Harlan dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, sometimes celebrated as advancing a vision of equality based on color-blindness.
But you see that equality is not really what he had in mind. 2/
The fetishization of Asian women is what drew the killer to his targets.
In a prior thread, I explored historical roots of anti-Asian racism, but did not get to the intersection of gender and race. Here’s my attempt to do this succinctly. 1/
Before I begin, I am indebted to the scholarship that explores race and gender (@mari_matsuda, @sandylocks, Sumi Cho) and the construction of Asian female bodies (Gina Marchetti, @celineshimizu) and countless others I’ve learned from. 2/
How are race and sex intertwined in constructing Asian bodies?
Asian racialization is not monolithic. Asian men and Asian women sometimes are treated similarly, lumped together as Asian. Other times, treated differently. 3/
"Xiaojie Tan, the hardworking owner of Young’s Asian Massage in Acworth, Ga., made her patrons feel at home and treated her friends like family, one longtime customer said on Thursday."
"Ms. Feng, 44, had just started working at the spa in the past few months, Mr. Hynson said.
'They welcomed you,' he said. 'If you were a friend of Emily’s, you were a friend of theirs.'"
"Ms. Yaun, one of four siblings who grew up in the area, had worked as a server at a Waffle House restaurant. She raised a 13-year-old son as a single mother and had an 8-month-old daughter, family members said."
I'll be posting periodically throughout the day about historical roots of anti-Asian racism in US.
I know that some are deeply familiar with this history. I know that many are not.
Because people learn in different ways, here's a link to talk I gave a year ago that connected what I called "The Moment" to historical antecedents. Skip the fulsome introduction of speaker - go to minute 6:30.
2/
The former president is able to invoke, for his own political advantage, anti-Asian sentiment that takes hold and grows because of the fertile ground - a rich substate as it were - of Asians as other, as foreign, as un-American. 3/
WA Bar - latest argument I've heard against diploma privilege - it's not fair to currently practicing lawyers. I looked at WSBA Bylaws, and #7 in screenshot is relevant as to @WAStateBar and Board of Governors (BOG). 1/6
They are to "[a]dminister admissions . . . in a manner that protects the public and respects the rights of the applicant or member." I've tweeted already about why I don't think UBE is a good tool to protect the public. But note the second part - rights of applicant or member.2/6
What right do applicants have with regard to admissions? What right do members have with regard to admissions of NEW attys? This "rights" language is fascinating. For applicants - I'd characterize them as having a right to not be subjected to unfair impediments to licensure. 3/6
National Conference of Bar Examiners @ncbex has come out strongly against diploma privilege. Much has been made of fact that its Pres/CEO got licensure through Wisc. diploma privilege. But I'm not here to do an ad hominem attack. Instead, let's look at what NCBE says. 1/
They distinguish Wisc. DP by saying (1) extensive required curriculum; and (2) character and fitness investigation. The second is a red herring. NO state supreme court that is considering DP would ditch that. And no ad
Good if true. But it's not. I studied this 6 months ago. Reviewed again today. Mandatory courses - nearly all law schools already require; add'l courses picked from categories, that again, nearly all students take. So no, NCBE's justification that Wisc DP okay doesn't hold water.