Related Links:
Alerts: Princeton Newspaper Satire Mocks Asian Americans
Kerwin Berk: "Yesterday's Racist May Not Be Today's Racist"
By Jeff Yang, AAJA member, New York Chapter
(January 23, 2007) -- Hot on the heels of that whole Rosie mess, some of you may have heard of the flap over the Daily Princetonian's publication of a parody op-ed, supposedly from a student named "Lian Ji," in their annual "joke edition" of the student paper. Here's a brief excerpt from "Princeton University Is Racist Against Me, I Mean, Non-Whites":
"Hi Princeton! Remember me? I so good at math and science. Perfect 2400 SAT score. Ring bells? Just in cases, let me refresh your memories. I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me. I get angry and file a federal civil rights complaint against Princeton for rejecting my application for admission."
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/01/17/opinion/17109.shtml
And yeah, the spelling and broken English goes on. And on. And on. Along with references to doing laundry, working railroads, dog eating, etc.
That said, it wasn't the op-ed alone that goosed my gander -- it was the post-publication spin. Faced with a firestorm of controversy over the supposed satire, the Daily Princetonian's Managing Board (who collaboratively wrote the op-ed) responded with an editor's note of surpassing arrogance:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/01/19/news/17133.shtml
"Many criticisms of the column, however, do not recognize its purpose. Using hyperbole and an unbelievable string of stereotypes, we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous. We embraced racist language in order to strangle it. At its worst, the column was a bad joke; at its best, it provoked serious thought about issues of race, fairness and diversity.
"The column in question was penned by a diverse group of students - including several Asians on our senior editorial staff - who had no malicious intent. Given our purpose, we are deeply troubled by and reject the allegation of racism.
"We welcome debate about our column, especially in the pages of this newspaper. We hope our readers will see the column for what it is.
"Chanakya Sethi '07, editor-in-chief; Christian Burset '07, Neir Eshel '07, Anna Huang '07, Nancy Khov '07, Alex Maugeri '07, Tom Senn '07 and Ellen Young '07, Editors, 130th Managing Board"
* * *
Now, OK, these are kids. They have room to grow and learn. Most of them will go into fields that have little to do with media or entertainment or journalism. But regardless of what industry they decide to join, they've got to understand that this kind of post-facto rationalization, what one might term the Rosie/Carolla Defense, never flies.
Why is it always the least subtle, least inventive, most humor-challenged "comedians" who accuse other people of not having a sense of funny? Worse, these kids didn't just see their essay as thigh-slappin' high-larious. It was also supposed to "provoke serious thought."
Am I being too tough on these kids? After the Michael Richards N-bomb flap, Malcolm Gladwell, of "Blink" and "Tipping Point" fame, used his blog (www.malcolmgladwell.com) to outline a framework for determining if a statement is genuinely racist. He brings it down to three factors:
- Content: What is said clearly makes a difference. I think, for example, that hate speech is more hateful the more specific it is. To call someone a n----r is not as a bad as arguing that black people have lower intelligence than whites."
- Intention: "Was the remark intended to wound, or intended to perpetuate some social wrong? Was it malicious?"
- Conviction: "Does the statement represent the individual's considered opinion?"
What Gladwell doesn't take into account is that racism isn't solely the province of the speaker; it is shaped by context and colored by the nature of the audience. Assuming that our goal is a civil society, we have a responsibility to understand and acknowledge the reasons why others might see harm in our actions or statements; the harm may not be intended, but if, as the Daily Princetonian Managing Board suggests, flaps such as this offer an opportunity for advancing the dialogue around race and stereotype -- well, isn't a dialogue by definition a two-way street? You can't categorically "reject" one party's position, then call for an open debate, can you?
I submit the following as thought starters, if not necessarily rules of engagement -- at the least, these are things people should consider before busting out with a questionable and potentially inflammatory statement:
1. If you're using humor as a way of pushing people to think about a situation, by illuminating foibles or disconnects between and within racial groups, you should get some leeway. I would put a lot of Dave Chappelle's stuff in here, especially things like his "Racial Draft" sketch and his "black Ku Klux Klan member" skit. It's uncomfortable to watch some of it and there are things going on that some people might take offense at, but you get the larger point of the parody -- there's a message beyond "look how stupid/cheap/crude/lame etc. [insert ethnic group] is! HAW!"
We owe artists, performers, and other creatives some elasticity before jumping on the racism wagon.
2. If you are a member of the racial group you're satirizing, you are in a better position to illuminate said foibles or disconnects -- it's at least a more defensible position, and probably a more informed one.
3. Being funny helps. If diverse audiences find what you're doing hilarious, at least there's some kind of utility to your shtick, right?
4. If it's a novel take on a topic or situation -- again, it's no "get out of jail free" card -- but at least you can stake a claim to breaking new ground.
5. Power matters. Sorry. It just does. It's not the same thing when a white, educated, upper-class person makes fun of a nonwhite, less educated, working class person as vice versa.
By these standards, where does the Daily Princetonian's "joke op-ed" stand?
On point 1., I'd give them a thumbs down. I can't for the life of me see what the larger point of the piece was, or how it's meant to interrogate or satirize stereotypes.
Point 2., also a fail. Sure, there are Asians who are part of the editorial board, but that doesn't absolve the non-Asians. This is a piece that was going out under the banner of the Princetonian, and from there, to the world. It should have been read from that perspective before publication -- that's the responsibility of an editorial board. When we print this, how, objectively, will it be read and interpreted? What is our message? Is it getting across?
If they truly wanted to satirize the Jian Li issue (and the larger notion of Asian "whiz kid" stereotypes), why not write a fake op-ed by, say, a doped-out slacker Asian-American dude who's spent the last four years smoking pot and surfing, got straight Ds and 600 on his SATs, but still claims to have been rejected from both Princeton because of "reverse discrimination"?
Point 3. and 4., two more thumbs down. The gags they use are unfunny. Old as rice. And ultimately, at least from my perspective, lame.
Point 5. Well, Jian Li is far from a poor, uneducated, unable-to-defend-himself individual, but the way the piece is written, it has a distinctly anti-immigrant note to it. The bad fake accent, the "My mom from same province as General Tso. My dad from Kung Pao province" lines. Ugh. When you can't tell parody from racist propaganda, it's time to think hard about what you're doing.
As the puppets in Avenue Q say, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist." But if you're smart and you put a foot in it, you admit it, you apologize, you learn something, you move on -- you don't jump on a high horse and accuse others of being dense.
If you're not smart, and apparently there's a lot of dumb floating around on Ivy League campuses, you do the Rosie/Carolla thing.
About Fresh View
The views expressed in this column are solely those of the individual and do not necessarily reflect those of AAJA. For consideration as the next columnist, AAJA members are invited to e-mail mediawatch@aaja.org.