Major and Minor players...

Beyond Black and White:

Racializing Asian Americans in a Society Obsessed with O.J.

By Cynthia Kwei Yung Lee

I found Lee's article to be an eye-opening piece in addressing the extended issues of race that seemed to revolve around the Simpson trial, yet weren't given the same amount of attention as the general confrontation that was developing between black and white Americans. I was unaware of the extent to which Asian Americans were involved in the case, save for Judge Ito, as well as the racial remarks that were used against them or when referring to them.

However, I do understand how these issues may have fallen below the radar of most Americans when looking back on this case. Yes, Asian Americans clearly had a role to play, but, for the most part, the major players in the case made race issue revolve around the tensions and distinctions being made between black and whites. A black man was on trial for killing a white couple. A white, racist police officer appeared to have tainted the evidence. The main black defense attorney made this a case about race, about being African-American in a white world. These were the major issues, the major players - the people that everyone was thinking about during the trial. Ito was obviously there and was also an essential part, as were the Asian American witnesses that testified in court, yet it wasn't really about them.

Clearly, the way in which the public reacted or better yet failed to react to much of the racial commentary about Asians during the course of the Simpson trial reflects the issue that this paper is bringing forward. Yes there was anger and people were offended by senator D'Amato's comments about Ito or the drawings published in O.J.'s Legal Pad, but this outrage really came from special interest groups. It seemed like in some of the situations presented, the American public largely accepted the comments that were being thrown around so carelessly by certain media members and people involved in the case.

What I did find particularly interesting, as Lee noted, was the backlash received due to the racial remarks made about Dennis Fung. Both Cochran as well as Shapiro made jokes at Fung's expense, yet the white, Jewish Shapiro seemed to be the only one who faced public wrath for his comments about the "Hang Fung" restaurant in which he handed out fortune cookies. Neither comment was tasteful, yet it seemed that, as Lee pointed out, Shapiro was the only one who found himself forced to make an apology in order to quell the public uproar. Cochran escaped unharmed, which appeared to be due to the fact that he was the one who made this case about race, who made it about the racism perpetuated by whites. It was interesting how that type of defense had some backlash against a white member of his own team, and really says a lot about the sentiments that brought during this trial, on differing levels of course, about issues of racism.

Clearly this case was about more than black and white, but not everyone seemed to realize that. Not everyone got on board and paid attention to every derogatory comment made about Asian Americans. The black/white perspective really took the forefront of this case, and while that is clearly troublesome, as other issues did exist, I do feel that it's understandable due to the race and identity of the major players/parties involved. Like in many major play or film or production, there are major and minor characters. And while Asian Americans clearly had their role to play in the Simpson trial, those roles were largely secondary to the white and black actors, and therefore did not garnish the same amount of attention.

It's all about race...

(RE)AFFIRMING RACE: "Reality."

Negotiation, and the “Trial of the Century”

By Darnell M. Hunt

Hunt's article on the issues surrounding the Simpson case, especially and obviously when it comes to race, does remind me of how important the trial became when it comes to race relations and realizations. Not that I'm admitting it was important from the start, but through over-sensationalized hyper-media coverage it became an issue of social importance, and one that people became engrossed with.

As this study details, it also became a portal into which we are able to see our own biases when it comes to race. The divide that existed between white and black Americans during the Simpson trial was massive, as noted by the statistics used in this article. Definitions of racism were established and challenged in both sects of society. Particulars of the case were argued round the clock, but in the end, it seemed that each group, at least for the most part, tended to side with its "own kind".

I found this study to be incredible interesting and insightful, as it was a momentary gaze into the discussions going on in every household and in every circle of friends all around the country, and it revealed some rather interesting issues and beliefs when it comes to different people's positions in society, and the beliefs they may hold due to their race and gender. A very insightful study study, and one that in the end, is still shocking to read about.

Focusing our attentiong, setting the agenda...

TV NEWS HYPER-COVERAGE AND THE REPRESENTATION OF PLACE: OBSERVATIONS ON THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE

By Derek H. Alderman

I found Alderman's piece on the hyper-coverage of the Simpson case to interesting, though admittedly incomplete, as he openly admits at the conclusion of the paper. As a journalism major, and a sociology minor, the idea of hyper-coverage by the media and the over-saturation of stories is nothing new. I have examined it from both a sociological and as well as a journalistic perspective, and I find flaws with this type of reporting from both angles.

First, from a sociological perspective, I see the danger focusing our attention on one story, and one story only, and fear that this type of extreme agenda-setting, which is a powerful tool of the media and other institutions, sometimes leads us a astray. As Alderman points out in this piece, coverage of the O.J. Simpson case made up nearly 30% of network broadcasts. It took away time from other international and domestic stories. While there are reasons why this case was so appealing, - it involved a celebrity, was very controversial, had a race element to it - in the grand scheme of things, there were other incidents and issues that demanded further attention. For example, as Alderman mentions, the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Simpson case beat out an act of mass murder and terrorism, one that should have been on every one's minds. But who has the control over that? The media.

I am equally disappointed with the Simpson coverage from a journalistic perspective. We know that there are issues in the media, that we tend to over/under-simplify stories, or that ethical issues are often brought up by the ways in which we report the news. It is scary to see how much of an influence we actually have on the world around us, how much we are able to control what's on the public forum. Bringing national stories to the local or regional level for instance, is a tactic that is widely used in the media, and one that Alderman identifies in this piece. And while oftentimes it is useful tool for explaining a national incident in local context, the way in which it was used during the Simpson case was sensational, and continually brought our attention back to O.J. and Los Angeles. This hyper-coverage is perhaps the scariest because although it is a way to segue from one story to another, it is also a way of keeping the viewer's thoughts on a certain piece, on a certain story, preventing the audience from thinking about other more important issues.

When it all comes down to it, the O.J. Simpson case was not that significant - it was not really an issue of social/public importance. But the media made it into one. And that's the power, and the responsibility of being a journalist.

Who saw that one coming...

Going to the Chapel? Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the United States, 1973-2000

By Sarah A. Soule

Soule’s article investigates the development of state-level same-sex marriage bans instituted in United States beginning in 1973 and ending in 2000, taking into account the effects of political influence, interest groups and the ideas of values of everyday citizens. Soule argued that all of these factors must be taken into account when determining how same-sex marriage bans came into place.

The findings in Soule’s study were actually fairly surprising. I too, was surprised as she was by some of her results. I would have assumed that states with more pro-gay/lesbian legislation would be less likely to ban gay marriage. Wrong. I would have thought states with Democratic leaders would more lenient than those with largely Republican or Conservative leaders. The opinions of elite leaders also do not matter significantly when it comes to the development of same-sex marriage bans. I found these two findings to be quite surprising. It seems that liberal or democratic leaders are more sympathetic to same-sex marriage, but the findings in this study did not support the idea that their affiliation had any effect on the beliefs of the people when it came to voting on and passing these bans. While this was rather surprising, the fact that states that had recently repealed sodomy laws or passed protections for gays and lesbians against hate-crimes were nearly twice as likely to pass laws banning same sex marriage simply blew me away. At least at first. Then I read Soule’s explanation for why this is, and it actually made sense. With the passage of such legislation, it actually mobilized anti-gay marriage interest groups to ban together in order to prevent the slippery-slope that would lead to gay marriage.

This actually made a lot of sense after previously reading the 1998 Maine Referendum in which naming, blaming and claiming were used in order to conjure up enough support to pass the referendum banning gay marriage. That piece of legislation also went into effect shortly after hate-crime laws were passed, and as Soule pointed out, this occurred because the passage of such laws actually scared enough of the interest groups to ban together and develop a strategy to circumvent the what they determined to be a threat to their way of life.

4 years, and that's all you've got to show for it?

The Effective Dates of No-Fault Divorce Laws in the 50 States

By Denese Ashbough Vlosky and Pamela A. Monroe

Vlosky and Monroe’s research essentially determines reviews and redefines the effective dates (dates in which laws went into effect) for the all the no-fault divorce laws in the 50 United States. They argue that inconsistencies in prior studies which measured these start dates differently undermined the research conducted and left out important areas of research. Prior to no-fault divorce, dissolving partnerships were put on basically put on trial, and one member was found and guilty and the other innocent.

I would argue that although slightly interesting, and somewhat important in one being able to determine when to begin measuring, this is probably one of the more useless studies I have read about so far. This article determines almost nothing, save the actual effective dates of no-fault divorce rates in the U.S. in just 5 other states. Most of the dates determined in this research already matches up with the majority of dates already used in other studies, which were able to both establish these effective dates as well as measure the effects of no-fault laws on the rate of divorce. This study did not do that in the least.

While I understand that Vlosky and Monroe were trying to give other researchers a template for which to measure no-fault divorces laws, this study, which seems to have taken 4 years to conduct and finally publish, resolves and tells us almost nothing new or important. Sometimes I feel completely let down by these articles, but this one by far takes the cake as one of the most useless. It doesn’t even measure the effects of no-fault divorce, which I guess was not the author’s intention, but that’s the part I was most curious about. I do not in any way believe an entire paper needed to be constructed on this single topic, and feel that in taking so much time to put what is essentially a “methods” section, or simply a small piece of the research, into a full-fledged academic article was a waste of the authors’ time, and a waste of my time because I happened to read it.

The Power of Precedence...

Blue Jeans, Rape, and the De-Constitutive Power of Law

By Kitty Calavita

Calavita’s article focused on the absurd ruling by the Italian Supreme Court, which overturned a rape conviction on the grounds that tight jeans would be impossible to take off without consent from the person wearing them, and how legal moments like this have the power to undermine the very beliefs and values it stands to uphold. These de-constitutive moments tend to happen during periods of cultural unrest and are often so out-of-touch with popular belief that they are easily brought to the foreground of our attention.

The case this particular article discusses is absolutely insane. It uses outdated, unsound reasoning to come to a conclusion that does truly undermine the legal system, making unproven assumptions about case that act as evidence of innocence. Yet the circumstances are so absurd, that it’s obvious the ruling did anything but seek justice. And it’s amazing how much of law is based on precedence, on the cases that went before.

It’s scary how much precedence can affect future cases. All the decisions that came before influence the ones that court continues to make in the future. The media outrage commented on how now all future rapists have a means in which to defend themselves in the future – “of course it was consent, how could I take her tight jeans off without her help?” Technically, the precedence from this case could be used by the defense to show that a defendant is not guilty of rape.

A similar ruling that sets an odd precedence occurred in my hometown. Several years ago, a couple kids tried to pull a prank on a friend. They went to his house and tapped on the windows at 8 pm on a Friday night. The friend wasn’t there, but his brother was. He came outside to investigate with a .22, and shot one of the teens in the back of the leg as they fled into the woods. A bunch of really shady incidents occurred after that, and it’s somewhat unclear about who actually called and ambulance and how helpful the brother was once he realized he’d shot a family friend. The family of the boy who was shot tried to press charges, but the case never made it past the grand jury. A year later it was picked up the state district attorney, but the charges being pressed didn’t apply well with the specifics of the case.

In the end, the brother got off without even a slap on the wrist. Now it was a stupid prank, and there was probably some reasonable fear the brother could have been feeling at the time when he decided to step out into the night with a gun, but think about the precedence that sets when he gets off without any punishment at all. He shot somebody. And nothing happened. They didn’t even take away his guns after that. Basically, this case can be cited in the future the next time someone shoots a person who’s on the property and claims that they feared for their life. I see scary similarities, however ridiculous, between this case and the one in Italy. Both the resulting rulings were absurd. Both set scary precedents. Both undermined the system of justice they were meant to preserve, and therefore were de-constitutive.

So what do men find sexually harassing?

The Influence of Race and Gender On Students Self-Reports

Of Sexual Harassment By College Professors

By Linda Kalof et al.

This article revealed the results of a study that relinquished responses from 525 undergraduate students, of various races and both in genders, in regards to their experiences of sexual harassment by faculty members at the college. 40% of women and close to 30% of men revealed that that had been subjected to sexually harassing behaviors, usually gender harassment.

The fact that sexual harassment exists on college campuses was not much of a surprise in this study. As the article reveals, there have been multiple studies like this carried out in the past. What I found surprising were some of the results and conclusions made available by the men who participated in the survey. While men are generally believed to be underrepresented in terms of experiencing and reporting sexual harassment, this study found that men may actually identify certain behaviors as sexually harassing in which women do not. I found this to be a rather intriguing finding, yet it did not seem as though the authors elaborated on this point, and I wish they did.

It seems that men are generally believed to put up with more behaviors that women usually find harassing because they view those behaviors in a different light, so it would have been very interesting to see the what men in particular view as sexually harassing. The findings of this study are also interesting, as it appears the way of assessing and surveying for sexual harassment seems to be mostly directed at white women. Hmm. Doesn’t it always seem to be that way?