Covering Part 2

Part two of covering by Kenji Yoshino discusses racial and sex-based covering. Yoshino begins by recounting his personal experience as a Japanese-American and his forcing to be 100% Japanese in Japan and 100% American in the U.S. this became apparent to Yoshino when going to school in Japan where half-japanese where not treated as fully Japanese and almost outcast. Yoshino further discusses the view of Asians in the U.S, as being a specific type of over-achiever, with many people expecting him to over-excel is academics. The struggle racial minorities have with “whiteness” is apparent and Yoshino addresses this by noting experiences of others who try to become “more white” or assimilate to this culture. An example of this racial struggle is apparent in Yoshino’s recollection of a former student of his that once accused a author of being a “Banana” that is, yellow on the outside and white in the inside. This erroneous idea that one is one race and acts another is the assimilation struggle Yoshino depicts in this part of the book.

Yoshino discusses a court case Rogers v. American Airlines where an African American woman was who worked for American Airlines was prevented by the airline to wear her hair in cornrows or braids, hairstyles often ascribed to African Americans. This is a form of forced racial covering as it is apparent the airline has no desire in her changing her hair other that having Rogers seem “less black” this further contends Yoshino’s argument that society dictates “good” racial minorities from “bad” racial minorities. Yoshino uses this case to explain racial covering is other aspect for other racial minorities to avoid being too much of whatever group they belong to. Yoshino does this in one way by highlighting advice given by John T. Molloy’s New Dress for Success such as Hispanic men avoiding pencil-line mustaches and African Americans avoiding wearing Afro hairstyles.

In discussing sex-based covering Yoshino concentrates on the social constraints women face in the workplace or in legal matters. Yoshino admits in this case he is outside of the covering experience, however he does shed light on how women are caught in a “catch 22” where they are coerced to act “feminine” but not too “feminine” and “masculine” at the same time but avoiding being too “masculine”. Yoshino highlights how women are coerced to act a certain way in order to be “good” at their job. This demand to cover traits associated with women is interesting as Yoshino determines this inability to reverse-cover where women cannot act in a certain way to gain acceptance due to this “catch 22”. This is perpetuated by the idea of “separate spheres” that is men dominating the public sphere and women being coerced into being limited to only dominating the domestic sphere. This restricts women to being understood firmly as “mommy’s” where having children prevent women from working altogether, often coercing women to cover pregnancies until absolutely impossible to do so.

Part two brings the idea of covering into a new light as it moves away from strictly gay covering and explains covering of other minority groups. This part does a more inclusive explanation of covering demands and how these demands affect minority groups across many axis.

Is Civil Asset Forfeiture Legal Robbery?

there has been an alarming increase in civil seizures and forfeitures of assets exceeding $5,000 since the war on Drugs was declared and even more recently right after 9/11. This practice was lightly touched upon by Michelle Alexander in the New Jim Crow when describing a story of a man who was murdered by police on suspicion of growing Marijuana on his property shortly before seizing his assets. Civil asset forfeiture is essentially the ability of a police officer to seize funds exceeding $5,000 on suspicion that these funds were either used or intended to be used to purchase drugs or somehow aid terrorist organizations. these laws were initially put in place to combat the drug trade however have now been widely used without finding any narcotics and in many cases without charging individuals at all. those who have had their assets seized forfeit their right to their property after a certain amount of time, this usually occurs as the process of receiving the assets back require lengthy lawsuits, along with funds on legal aid.

in many cases the practice of asset forfeiture is largely a due process issue as those who have had their assets seized cannot fully and confidently argue their case and prove their innocence. this practice is become quite common on interstate highways with officers stopping motorists for minor traffic violations and using this as grounds to search vehicles and confiscate cash, in many cases not even exceeding $5,000 but simply seeming suspicious as “the average person does not usually carry such an outstanding sum of cash. This is often cited as one of the more shady practices of police departments as civil forfeiture is rarely seen in the mainstream media. one of the most interesting aspects about this law is how the assets are charged with the crimes which is an obscure concept, how does one charge money with a crime? how does one prove that the money one is holding is indeed “legal” this leads to obscure court cases such as UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($8,850) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY.

what seems to be the most shocking part of this practice is how the funds are used after they have been forfeited. since most people tend to not receive their money back as lawyer fees and time constrain the desire to combat the seizure quite a large sum of money ends up becoming somewhat of a slush fund for police departments across the country used to buy certain equipment that is often unnecessary as one officer stated “things we would like to have but can’t fit into the budget” like buying a frozen Margarita machine along with bottles of liquor for department parties and celebrations.

this practice seems not to be deterring much crime and seems to have also lost its original intention to combat drug trafficking as many innocent people are falling victim to essentially being robbed by police officers. this practice is very easily abused and quite useless in combating crime. to me it seems as though this practice is just a way for police departments to fill their coffers with free money that is rationalized because it is “legal” whether or not it is morally right or even representative of the duties of police officers. I understand the intent of the law as obviously most drug trafficking and transactions deal in large sums of unexplainable cash. However when there is little to no evidence of there being any illegal activity on the part of the person whose assets were seized there should be no reason to withhold the assets until forfeiture, that just seems like robbery. please share your thoughts on this i’m sure this practice seems unfair to many of you, I would like to know if anyone believes that there is true merit and justification for this practice does it seem reasonable to continue this practice? should we reform these laws so innocent people aren’t taken advantage of like politicians such as Rand Paul have been pushing? is this a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the officers? please post your thoughts.

Here is some info on civil forfeitures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/981

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/461/555

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture

Brown V Board Continued

here are the links to the USA today article regarding school segregation, and the video we did not have time for in class. in addition i would like to ask all of you how school segregation can be addressed, will simply enacting legislation that brings students together improve the overall success of the school? how can we address this issue without making it seem as if having white people in a classroom will somehow improve the quality of the education? please post your thoughts

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/05/15/school-segregation-civil-rights-project/9115823/

Is the fight for gay marriage really over?

Many new political and cultural strides have been taken lately in regards to the issue of same-sex marriage in terms of acceptance by the general population and most surprisingly over the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage by the Republican Party, and the Catholic Church. Many news outlets have been writing on this issue using polls and various other data collecting sources to shed light on the changing views Americans have over same sex marriage. However this begs the question, if same sex marriage is so widely accepted by Americans why is there still blatant opposition to the issue? Why is same-sex marriage not legal in every state? And how come in many instances when talking to Average Americans is the issue still deemed taboo?

In a recent article I Read by the Washington post () it is determined that allowing same-sex marriage is an increasingly accepted idea with age being a major indicator of whether one supports gay marriage, with younger people more accepting of same sex-marriage (however according to the article as one ages it seems views toward same-sex marriage also become more acceptable). This article however seems to give a false idea that the “fight” for same-sex marriage socially and politically is coming to an eventual end, and it is only a matter of time until the practice is widely accepted and normalized in American culture. However if this were true I believe much more progress would be made in this issue, this article completely ignores the idea that there still is an ideology (largely religiously based) that is inherently anti-gay. Many people still believe being gay or same sex marriage to be a “sin” or believe it to be too out of the ordinary, not “normal” not what people grew up believing in the “good ol’ days”
This ant-gay ideology of conservatism resonates with many people in America not only in the Republican Party but it seems members of this party are more radical against gays than other political parties. For example, Fox news anchor Mike Huckabee recently came out on his show strongly encouraging the GOP to “grow a spine” and fight against the acceptance of same-sex marriage as a result of recent acceptance by the Republican party to avoid “political volatility” viewed by many Americans Link:

This disturbing episode of party militarization and mobilization is a direct example of the Republican Party’s few but extreme members who completely oppose the issue by not only condemning same sex marriage and asking for a “harder fight” against it but criticizing the overall practices by the Supreme Court in politics today. Mr. Huckabee’s rant seemed more like an attack on the LGBT community and less of enforcement and encouragement in the ideology of his party, which brings be to the point and ultimate questions rising in this post; Do you think the idea of same-sex marriage is as widely accepted as many news outlets make it seem to be? Is the “fight” over the acceptance of the LGBT community finally over? Is not taking a particular stance against same-sex marriage enough to reconcile years of hate and discrimination perpetrated by the Republican party? Is It only a matter of time until this issue and members of the LGBT community is widely accepted or will there always be an opposition? Please feel free to respond with whatever views you might have!!!

-Andres Legramandi

Unbearable Weight, Susan Bordo

In this piece Bordo seeks to broaden the view of the current Abortion debate in the U.S. by engaging in a thorough critical analysis of the history of women being subjected to reproductive control, discrimination, and being treated as sub human, often described as “fetal incubators” by Bordo. Bordo highlights many court cases where the bodily integrity and well being are undermined or outright ignored by judges who only consider the well being of the fetus at the expense of the rights of the mother carrying the child including religious practices and most importantly the right to privacy of one’s own body. Bordo raises questions around the issue of the “person hood” pregnant women especially women of color and from lower income status’ in an effort to show that the debate over the legitimacy of abortion is not so simply “a contest between fetal claims to person hood and women’s right to choose” but a more complex issue that raises questions surrounding the value of women and their rights in American society.

in the opening of the piece, Bordo sheds light on the contradiction in the legal system surrounding the value of life by citing examples of how people in certain situations can deny the survival of another person if that means one must undergo a surgery, on the grounds that the body is a sacred entity in which invasion without one’s consent is unthinkable, however in many cases women are subjected to forced bodily alterations and surgeries such as forced sterilization and forced c-sections. this is an excellent example of the duality in American culture where rights to bodily ownership must always be upheld…unless its the body of a pregnant woman, in which case all forms of invasion are fair play. This practice of forced bodily invasion immediately reminds of the practice of forced ultrasounds giving to women in certain states that are considering abortions, which was of great debate during the 2012 presidential election. it is interesting yet unsurprising that certain rights to privacy, health and reproduction are strongly upheld and promoted until they surround women and certain “defected groups” such as people of color, the poor and criminals. one example of this is highlighted by Bordo as she recounts moments in history where women having a third child were often coerced into being sterilized in order to maintain their medicaid regardless of their religious beliefs.

the absolute disregard for the practice of informed consent given for doctors to invade a woman’s body is another alarming theme that is all too common in modern American society resonating with the idea that women are quite often not valued as being a person but a mere baby carrying machine producing kids for a society run by men. this leads to the argument of the “Father’s rights” or the absurd belief that the father has more or equal say in the well being of the pregnant mother and her child. I do believe that a father has reproductive rights over the child however allowing men to bring suit against the mother of their children over an abortion, or forcing women to have children against their will greatly undermines the value of women in our society, and it is easy to see how they are often believed to carry children at any cost.

I am critical in Bordo’s piece as she never explains a further alternate view idea of father’s rights, for example a father being forced to raise a child against his will because the mother will not have an abortion when the father is incapable or unfit to be a father, it is my personal belief that not everyone is fit to raise a child and forcing anyone, man or women to rise a child can be damaging to not only the family involved but society as a whole. however i do fully agree with the bias towards women who may consume drugs or alcohol while pregnant without considering the potential abuse by the father, it is equally important that the father does not create a hostile environment for the child in the womb or out and the legal bias arresting omen for endangering their fetus in extreme situations is another way American society means to forcibly invade and control women, their bodies and the lives growing inside them.