baby come back

Dear Diane,

So I found this University of Michigan website that provides a very comprehensive summary of a whole archive of scholarly articles on "Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action." It then proceeded to categorize and define each argument, from defending affirmative action to opposing it.

Needless to say, I felt overwhelmed and proceeded to crawl up into a ball on my bed and play ten rounds of tetris. But at last, I carefully went through each argument so you don't have to and here they are. My goal is to summarize each point of view in under 25 words to make this post as accessible as possible.

IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

FOR JUSTICE

• Compensation for past injustices (past)
• generalized compensation to the group comes closer to the ideal of compensatory justice than a refusal to compensate at all.

• Help block current mechanisms of discrimination (present)
• Discrimination is current

• Promotes integration, and thereby helps dismantle the continuing causes of race-based disadvantage (future)
• Forward-looking rather than looking to the past; dismantle disadvantages of racial groups,  democratic civil society

• Break correlation between class and race
• Stigmatized underclass racial groups

FOR DEMOCRACY

• Colleges and universities work to create the "the capacity to regard oneself from the perspective of the other, the foundation of critical interaction..."

• Race-neutral attempts to secure integration either fatally compromise academic standards or fail to generate significant black and Hispanic enrollment in selective schools. 
• "The most important objective of . . . [affirmative action policies] is to bring about greater ethnic integration of society's elite, on the reasonable premise that society functions more efficiently, more equitably, more democratically, and more harmoniously if its professional, managerial, academic, and political elite is ethnically well integrated." (Weisskopf)
• (I have NYTimes charts! yay!)

In California, particularly at Berkeley, blacks and Hispanic enrollment has significantly dropped, despite Hispanic population increasing. 

Florida, including U of Florida, contradicts this because it has fared okay, especially with Hispanic enrollment. 

FOR SOCIAL UTILITY (where diversity is seen as a benefit to the group vs just the individual)

• "The diverse whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts.  Diverse groups are more effective at solving problems than relatively homogeneous groups, even if the average individually-measured merit of the homogeneous group is higher than the average individually-based merit of the diverse group. "

IN OPPOSITION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

ON MORAL PRINCIPLE

• Reverse racism: goes against equal protection of laws, thus turning the tables in favor of certain races is equally unjust as original discrimination
• Reverse racism is a really shitty argument in all circumstances, and the best comeback you can come up with is "you're a dumbass bonehead" but I've finally discovered an educated rebuttal:
• "The hostility [toward the oppressors] is the result of these [oppressive, segregated] actions, and whereas hostility and racial anger are unhappy facts wherever they are found, a distinction must surely be made between the ideological hostility of the oppressors and the experience-based hostility of those who have been oppressed."
• Here's my planned rebuttal when anyone says "reverse racism": you are being a little narrow-minded. When minorities express what you call "reverse racism," they are expressing anger and frustration at their history of being oppressed. This is not racism because racism is ideological hostility and oppression of somebody because of their race for no fucking good reason. 

• Violates principle of merit: individual with merits should be accepted or hired
• opens opportunities to minorities and women at the expense of the least advantaged white men

• Violates principles of compensatory justice
• Comes up with these problems: (a) benefits individuals who have not suffered discrimination; (b) burdens individuals who have not engaged in discrimination; (c) fails to adjust the size and kind of compensation to the specific discriminatory harms each individual suffered.

ON SOCIAL UTILITY

• Hurts intended beneficiaries
• Stigmatizes beneficiaries by saying less competent, can't compete on equal playing field
• Abolishing affirmative action would allow black students to attend less competitive schools, closer in qualifications; there is a disparity in minorities versus everybody else's merits 
• Creates white resentment against blacks (I was talking to Dr. Ketring, who used this argument)
• Relatively higher dropout rates of minorities because too challenging

• Socially divisive, creates fragmented country
• Gives incentive to minorities to identify with aggrieved group in order to claim special privileges
• This divides the nation as a whole

• Inefficient remedy to unconscious bias (see above as well)

• Diversity defense  cannot bear the weight put on it
• Same diversity rationale for race then should also apply to religion, but we reject discrimination on basis of religion
• Uses race as proxy (substitute) for attitudes is unconstitutional bc it depends on racial stereotypes

• Should be left to voluntary efforts not the government

• ***Economically inefficient
• I find this is one of the most powerful arguments against affirmative action, written by Glenn Loury
• Reduce black individuals' incentives to accumulate capital bc of systematically lower admissions
• Loury really articulates well the paradox that exists with providing leverage to minority students:
• "The political discourse over affirmative action harbors a paradoxical subtext: Middle-class blacks seek equality of status with whites by calling attention to their own limited achievements, thereby establishing the need for preferential policies. At the same time, sympathetic white elites, by granting black demands, thereby acknowledge that, without their patronage, black penetration of the upper reaches of American society would be impossible. The paradox is that, although equality is the goal of the enterprise, this manifestly is not an exchange among equals, and it never can be."

• Finally, the negative effects of affirmative action at three highly selective research universities and the advantages/disadvantages in terms of SAT points, done in a Princeton University study

• Whites: 0 (control group)

• Blacks: +230

• Hispanics: +185

• Asians: –50

• Recruited athletes: +200

• Legacies (children of alumni): +160

--

Honestly, I am exhausted. I've read arguments, alternatives, rebuttals (indeed, very good rebuttals)... I have no idea what to think!!!! I'm already very bad at decisions (e.g. rocky road ice cream or mint chocolate??? #lifequestions)... but I want convictions. 

All I know is, affirmative action is happening and it has proven effective in enrolling minorities. I'm almost positive it's not going anywhere, but I hope it becomes shelved someday, because that means someday we will have achieved the equality President Johnson was talking about. Equality as a right, equality as a fact, and equality as a result. What a visionary.

--

I technically missed a post. But considering you've missed... 4 posts??? imma be lax on myself. DIANE WHERE ARE YOU. the internet is weeping

love love love,

Elina

and when i tried to coax you out, you wouldn't make a sound

Dear Diane,

Affirmative action feels so immediate and relevant in a way the Voting Rights Act did not because it applied to a very recent period in our life we dare not recollect: college admissions (I just shuddered). Naturally, affirmative action applies to many aspects of American society today, most notably the work force, but its application in education is what generates much of the debate… and where it can potentially have the greatest impact as it was originally intended.

I'm going to try to answer at a few questions in this post, specifically regarding affirmative action in education:

1. What is the original intent of affirmative action?
2. How has affirmative action been conducted and received historically?
3.  What are the positives of having affirmative action and the negatives of outlawing it from colleges?
4. What are the negatives of having affirmative action?

What is the original intent of affirmative action?

This is definitely a loaded question, because the answer comes in many parts: 1) it was established in the '60s to combat the persistent discrimination suffered by African-Americans and 2) to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve. At least, this is Wikipedia's answer.  

But then what is the original intent of affirmative action in education? It certainly goes beyond compensating for past and continued discrimination. I like U of Michigan's interpretation best:

"Diversity itself has been defended as a dimension of merit--that is, being able to bring to the educational environment various perspective shaped by having lived in substantially different circumstances from the majority of students constitutes part of students' merit for admissions purposes."

I believe this defense of affirmative action in education holds fast even to this day, giving college admissions officers a very abstract interpretation of how affirmative action plays into the enrollment of freshmen students. I imagine admissions officers as minor gods, given free reign to conjure a microcosm -- which is what a college campus is, besides being a very intelligent and informed microcosm (which is by no means a representation of the real world). But it's very easy to get hung up on their vision of an ideal student population - e.g. at least 10 students must be musical prodigies, at least 1 must play the ukulele, 5 qualified for the 2012 London Olympics, 25 made a 2400 on the SATs and on and on. But these qualities are consequence of hard work and perhaps a little divine intervention… nobody has control of what their skin color is or who their parents are. If we acknowledge this unfairness upon enacting affirmative action, we must also acknowledge the advantage legacies have when applying to universities. I'll go further into that later.

How has affirmative action been conducted and received historically?

Case	Who / What	Ruling	Commentary
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)	33-year-old Allan Bakke applicant to University of California in Davis Medical School; he was rejected twice and filed against the school, alleging the admissions program excluded him due to his race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment	No clear-cut majority with a 5-4 split in which the majority agreed UC Davis's admissions program was unconstitutional. UC Davis admitted Bakke.	The admission process at UC Davis set aside 16 of the 100 seats for student who were African-American, Chicano, Asian, Native American, or members of other ethnic minorities (and established a separate admissions process for these 16 spaces).
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)	Barbara Grutter (white) was rejected from U of Michigan Law School and filed a suit against the school for discriminating against her race.	5-4 decision ruled the race-conscious admissions process may favor minorities but ruled U Michigan Law's compelling interest in promoting class diversity was constitutional.	This was the first time the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about affirmative action since Bakke. They cited the case during this trial.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)	Jennifer Gratz and Peter Hamacher (both white) applied to the University of Michigan in 1995 and was rejected. She was later commissioned by the Center of Individual Rights to file against the university. (Bollinger was university president during when Hamacher's application was under consideration.	6-3 decision ruled U of Michigan's point admission's system "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.	U of M used a 150-point system (100/150 points needed to guarantee admissions). 20 points were automatically granted to African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. This point system was deemed far too mechanical by the Supreme Court. (also: Bollinger musta been on stressed out muthaf---)
Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)	Undergrad Abigail Fisher applied to University of Texas in Austin but was rejected. She filed against the university, alleging she was discriminated on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.	Inconclusive: a 7-1 decision to send the case back to the lower courts to reconsider the standard they use to judge the fairness of UT Austin.	While the Supreme Court's approach to affirmative action in education has not changed, the court states that public institutions must have  a good reason for their methods in achieving the goal of racial diversity. Justice Kennedy: colleges and universities must demonstrate that "available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice" before taking account race in admissions decisions.

Given my state of exhaustion (the puppy is srsly depriving me of all sleep TTTTT), I will yet again ominously "to be continue" this post. I feel like this very ~impressive~ chart will make up for me only finishing 1/2 of my post. 

DIANE Y HAVEN'T U POSTED TODAY. Does that mean you're 3 posts behind??? 

well for your second punishment, I'm going to just going to go for the $$$$ and request a peach milkshake from chik-fil-a. or something sweet. you'd better start payin up. 

plzz come back i miss your insightful and very intelligent posts. 

xoxo,

elina

it's 2am spagetti coherency am i managing it

Dear Diane, 

I've been backspacing over and over trying to come up with a good analogy for how my brain functions and how my trains of thought work but all I'm coming up with is spaghetti but that seems to imply my brain is both edible and mushy… very appetizing. But I started by going through NYTimes articles on affirmative action (narrowly avoided reading the 10 articles/month quota fu NYTimes I'm not paying 99 cents for news), then tried to redeem my airmiles for my flight from Malaysia back to the states, bought my plane ticket to Bowdoin (ah the 21st!!! Less than a month ;_;), remembered to waive Bowdoin's medical insurance, finally got back to reading about affirmative action, and am now reading about Lyndon B. Johnson. 

So that's where I'll start this. I have a real soft spot for President Johnson (Wilson's got my heart though what a sweetheart) because in case you haven't figured out, social rights are very near and dear to me (um yea elina 99.9% of your posts are about race including this one do u have no versatility). Sure he was far too ambitious when he dreamed up the "Great Society" socialist program and his "War on Poverty," and sure he escalated the Vietnam War. But I feel like his impact on racial equality are pretty downplayed, especially because JFK tends to overshadow him in that regard. But Johnson was the first president to properly confront racial segregation with two Civil Rights bills in '63 and '64 when Kennedy previously wasn't able to break a filibuster by the Southern Dems. He then foresaw Southern dissent against his party but signed the bill anyway - unlike Nixon who favored segregation as means to grab votes from southerners. Johnson also passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the LANDMARK bill that prohibited voting discrimination, establishing federal oversight of elections administration for 48 YEARS. Wait, 48 years you say? Hang on hang on lemme do the math that means … it lost its power this year. I'm sure you kept insane tabs on the three big rulings the Supreme Court made this summer, including striking down Prop 8, mixed results on affirmative action (I'll get to that soon), and deeming the Voting Rights Act, specifically section 4 and 5, as outdated and unnecessary. Section 4 allows Congress to create a "coverage formula" to determine which states need to approval of their election laws under Section 5. 

Here are Justice Ginsburg's words on the significance of the VRA: 

“Beyond question, the V.R.A. is no ordinary legislation. It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment...For a half century, a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made.” 

She said it so eloquently, exacerbating the negative effects of the err in the Supreme Court's ultimate 5-4 ruling to free the 9 states that required federal advanced federal approval of election laws. Naturally these states responded immediately upon the court's ruling. Within literally hours, the Texas Department of Public Safety announced the department would begin distributing photo IDs under a 2011 law that US Attorney General Eric Holder had blocked based on the VRA. In Mississippi, voter ID would be required in primaries June 2014. North Carolina Republicans responded saying they similarly are putting a voter ID bill in motion. 
---

My next post will be part II, on affirmative action, where I began this tangent about Lyndon B. Johnson. I really want to show you the quote by Johnson that struck a chord in me and my position on racial equality, as well as you will see, on affirmative action. 

"Nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American...In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope...But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair...This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result...To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough."

 Johnson said this over forty years ago at Howard University's commencement speech, and yet it feels so relevant even today. We are all looking for opportunity, trying to reach a greater potential by discovering the space to do so. But there is a history that continues to cripple African-Americans to this day… and while equal opportunity is just within their grasp, America still has a long ways to go before she can even begin to ask for their forgiveness. 

--
until Friday (for part ii oh the suspense!), 
Elina

Call up to listen to the voice of reason, and got the answering machine

Ah Elina, your last post was too good to not respond to it (and sorry for the impersonal typing- but I think we all know the amount of misspelled words would have rendered a handwritten letter from me simply unreadable). I totally understand the feelings you expressed, but maybe not for the reasons you may expect.

You may remember that super shy, super awkward girl in ninth grade who had just moved back to Auburn. If I could have written a letter to myself, it would have sounded a lot like yours. How in the world would I find friends who understood me better than those friends who I had shared three years of my life with and who had lives just as weird as mine (living in Uganda, grew up in Africa, European parents, you can't make that stuff up)?

And the truth is, I didn't. I still think the memories and ideas I shared with those friends, could only come from those friends. Especially when I realized that the majority of people I met here literally thought that Africa was a country and thought I rode to school a lion. My friends knew a side to me that seemed unexplainable.

But when I found my niche here, I changed. You guys changed me, and I'd like to think that I changed you too. Most of the things we talk about (and that you mentioned in your letter), you introduced me to: This American Life... and Miyazaki... and, despite my aversion, Avatar. Suddenly my old friends didn't know me better, just differently.

I don't think I could overemphasize how much you, Mimi, Jojo and Lydia have influenced my life, but, perhaps it's consoling to know that friends aren't everything. There's something to be said for being yourself even when you're not readily identifiable with everybody-- I guess, like you said, that's the part about becoming an adult.  

So the best advice I can offer, is that when you feel yourself sinking into that all-consuming, heart aching need to connect- just remember to always be yourself (such insight, I know) but to look for new opportunities to expand your interests, and especially for you, Elina, expand your friends' interests <--you've got a special touch  for that. But most of all, don't hesitate to reach out to your old friends (but knowing me, it'll probably take more than one try to get my attention) to connect to your high school self.

Okay I just needed to get that out, still working on my actual post.

No comment on the punishment.

- D

i'm in friend-love with you

P.S: Relevant

Yumi Sakagawa's "I think I am in friend-love with you"

P.P.S: Your punishment: go skinny-dipping with me at midnight before the summer ends.

friendly giant mushrooms and winged lemurs

Dearest Diane,

After an exhausting week of posting about political and / or social injustice, I am going to shift gears completely and start talking about things of far greater sophistication: children’s TV shows.

Okay fine I’m seriously drained of all ability to analyze journalism jargon and angry Feminist bloggers on the interwebz and since we never properly defined the boundaries on the topics of discussion, I am TOTALLY allowed to try to convert you to children’s TV and don’t you dare doth protest.

Stop rolling your eyes in anticipation I know it’s no surprise I’m going to try yet again to convince you to watch Avatar: The Last Airbender but IT’S SO good.

Because I have no idea how I want to structure this post, I’m just going to create dun dun dun

~~~** THE COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF WHY YOU (YES YOU DIANE MICHELLE SIKKENS) SHOULD WATCH AVATAR THE LAST AIRBENDER**~~~

Wait lemme prelist this with a character / summary rundown:

• 3 seasons 
• 4 nations: water, earth, air, fire
• Fire Nation gains way too much power and starts taking over these nations
• 4 types of bending obvs the above
• Benders can bend, but there are nonbenders who are basically human woopie
• Avatar: can master all four elements and he has the save the world from the Fire Nation / Fire Lord
• Aang = Avatar. He's trying to master water, earth, and fire bc he can already airbend. 
• Katara = waterbender 
• Sokka = Katara's sister / nonbender 
• Toff = earthbender / season two / is blind
• Zuko = son of Fire Lord / firebender

1. Thematically, this show is so sophisticated and overwhelmingly deep. So here’s another list within this list of the themes (whoa metaaaa) this show has introduced.
• Good versus evil: where the line is drawn between good and evil and how to even define evil is repeatedly introduced from the beginning. I love how this show treats evil not really as individuals are inherently evil – like people are born evil – but evil as more permeable and more complicated. In most cases, evil emerges in the characters due to forces they cannot control. 
• The complexities of each character and how not everything is what meets the eye (see 2)
• Stereotypes and the pain they cause
• Revenge, primarily its futility
• Psychological disorder
• Love and sacrifice
• Brainwashing, 1984 style 
• Everything but zombies and vampires
• Familial expectation and responsibility (which I totally identify w on a regular)
• Pressure to save the world (which you totally identify w on a regular)
2. The character development. I honestly miss these characters so much that every few months or so I have to watch an episode just to be w them (do I have a problem?). Because the show had three seasons, the writers took their time to let each character's story unfold. Another plus: the show features front and center two very powerful women / teens: Katara and Toph. In "The Waterbending Master," Katara confronts the Northern Waterbending Tribe on its sexist policy of only letting men fight using Waterbending. Gah it's so fantastic I linked you to it.
• E.g.: Zuko, prince of the Fire Nation, is by far one of the most complicated characters and literally the most developed character I know of on television. He begins as the primary villain of the series, an angry teen who is desperate to capture Aang, the Avatar, in order to win back his honor. He has such a complicated history, from his father banishing him and his mother disappearing and his sister being everything he's not (a better firebender, a better daughter to his father etc). He may seem somewhat one-dimensional during the first few episodes but it's soon obvious there's more to him than meets the eye (also you should know his eye was burnt when his father punished him). There is an entire episode devoted to him and his past called "Zuko Alone." 

look at this sexy beast

3. Finally, a show about the Asian culture! Even though Avatar exists in a whole other world (see map below), the basis of the show is on the Asian culture and the characters are distinctly Asian. As I said before, these characters aren't one-dimensional or caricatures of classic stereotypes: they have distinct personalities and demonstrate just how eclectic the ethnicity is. The art of the show is Japanese anime - which Corey did his EE on! proving Avatar is drawn using classical Japanese animation, and the calligraphy used through the show is traditional Chinese calligraphy. Furthermore, the supernatural aspect of the show, Bending, is based on Chinese traditional martial arts (see 4). 

The world of Avatar! Showing the Water Nation (top left), Earth Nation (top right), Fire Nation (bottom left), Air Nation (bottom right).

4. The Bending. Okay honestly I have no deep analytic reason for why I love bending - it's honestly just so fun to watch and the animation is just phenomenal so... What is interesting particularly about Bending is that they are based on traditional martial arts. This specific video talks about how Earthbending relates to Chinese martial arts:

5. It's so funny. It's hard to capture the essence of its humor but it's quirky, sometimes slapstick, but mostly adorable and smart. It's definitely not the annoying "adult humor hidden under the facade of children's tv" which I loath. Here's Sokka on cactus juice. 

6. Every other reason that will convince you to watch the show. 

• the art is beautiful, the music on point
• the animals are funny and adorable and lovable (they're all hybrids you'll get over it)



Appa, Aang's the flying bison


Momo, Aang's winged lemur

• the episodes are each only 20+ minutes!!!! and only three seasons because the creators knew when to stop and appropriately conclude the series. 
• bc it's children's tv, it's definitely not as stressful as say, watching Breaking Bad which makes my heart just want to fall out because I'm so scared somebody's going to die at any given second. I wouldn't say it's stress-free but it's chill and easy on the eyes and mind. But you will definitely get equal gratification.
• its fan base is pretty much a cult. If my amazing taste in pop culture isn't enough proof, Mirtha, Janine, Joanna, Bonny, Peter, PK, Corey, Mr. Thompson all approve and love the series. You want in on this cult. Trust me.
• If you do choose to watch, you should know season 1 does move slowly compared to season 2 and 3. It picks up though.
• To start you off, I'm going to give you my favorite episode: The Tales of Basingsei. It's in slice-of-life film style (vignettes of everyday life) and you don't need too much context. It's beautiful, it makes me laugh, it makes me cry. and it showcases each character's personality. 

I'm sorry if this was not at all what you expected me to post ha ha but I really hope you are convinced. I also noticed we were lacking in visuals! We need to cater to our "growing" readership!!!!

haha see you Monday D!

Love,

Elina 

P.S. Obama spoke about race and stand your ground law! And Time Magazine's cover story! 

Or, darling, have you started feeling old yet?

Preferred Qualifications for Interns and what they really mean:

-Undergraduate or graduate studying Economics, International Relations, Political Science, or related majors-- undergraduates from ivy league schools only and/ or uninterested frat boys who knows someone who knows someone will be given priority

-Flexibility and willingness to work hours needed-- must be available at least 60 hours a week, and weekends, and don't even think about taking off holidays.

-Ability to work well with others in a 'team environment'-- must be willing to do your boss' work without feeling exploited

-This internship is highly competitive and reserved only for the most qualified candidates.-- Positions are given almost solely on personal connections This is a real way to get your foot in the door in Washington.--Little work for this internship will be spent with anyone who will be a great value to your future career aspirations.

-This is an unpaid internship.-- AND you're required to pay for any transportation and outside expenditures related to the internship

-Permanent positions at this organization may be offered to available interns after their internship, but not guaranteed and only reserved for the most impressive candidates-- hahaha paid job? yeah, no.

Dear Elina,

As I've been crippled by the boredom of near unemployment of this summer hiatus, I've begun the very taxing act of looking for and applying to internships. These days internships are a necessity for us college students who aspire to not become homeless. Gone are the days when working at a camp, waiting tables or, let's say, a retirement home, are considered valid or useful work experience, even though, we may learn just as much.

In fact my very school thinks it should be a requirement to ground a liberal arts education (hollla, holla, Field Work Term). Internships are kind of like our insurance for the rocky job market. If we could just land that one coveted spot in that organization, we would be on the right track, right?

Well, no. Not really. All this work I've been doing, you know, trying to sort out my future and all, has got me questioning the morality of internships for a couple of reasons.

I'm not sure if you remember, but a couple of years ago the Obama administration was accused of waging a 'war on internships'. This all came from an article (and this one) and several studies that showed that many 'interns' were actually illegally being taken advantage of under US labor laws. The  administration was literally just enforcing the law. But as Washington so often does, political sides were quickly drawn. The right accused Obama of hurting small businesses and violating the free market, while the left weekly supported any action as a cheap way to get labor union votes. But nothing really happened in the end.

Since then the debates have sizzled, mostly because students still want to work for these organizations even if they may be unfairly treated. Weather you believe internships are a way to exploit young people or that they're letting young people exploit an opportunity, there's still something inherently questionable about internships. As internships become the newest step in the staircase, the connection between class and educational attainment, and , as a result, income inequality is solidifying.

Entry level jobs (and even some internships) nowadays require, not only a four-year degree, but also graduate degrees, years of related job experiences, special training certificates, and skills that set you apart from all the other candidates that have all of these things. It becomes increasingly difficult for a low income student to, on top of working their way  through college, be able to support themselves during months of unpaid help... and then graduate school. And we question why our generation is going into so much debt? Only the wealthy or financially stupid unwise would be able to take work in Washington for no salary because mommy and daddy are willing to pay for rent, food, clothes, and entertainment, just like they paid for tuition and vacations years before. Well, excuse me if I'm a product of two blue collared jobs, yearning for a white collar career in the near future.

On the risk of sounding too dramatic, I would say, Internships have become the very epitome of our current society and the decline of the obtainable American Dream. They privilege the privileged-- both the students and employers while making it near impossible for the unknown to become known.

But holy-mother-of-god do I want still want one... just one... that's all I need.

Until tomorrow,--- What tomorrow already? ....Oh the cruel arm of procrastination---

- D

tgif (cept everyday is friday so... not rly)

Recently, Disney’s Lone Ranger has been surrounded by significant controversy over their representation of Native Americans  -- whether it’s the distantly related Native American somewhat condescending Johnny Depp playing Tonto or the oversimplification of Native American tribes as a whole. Hollywood has always been notorious for misrepresenting or exaggerating a culture’s stereotypes to maximize its box office, but another industry is also guilty of commercializing cultures: the fashion industry.

Cultural appropriation, according to Susan Scafidi, is the “taking of intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission.” This definition is very tricky, in the same way that we've discussed that fast fashion just ripsoff of high fashion because the fashion industry possesses no copyright or patent protection. Legally speaking, tribes are allowed to take advantage of trademark law, which the Navajo tribe has done – but to other tribes, that would mean having to trademark their cultural property, which feels wrong because they would be trademarking sacred, culturally rich items that don’t belong in commerce in the first place. Then there’s also the American Indian Arts and Crafts Actmakes it illegal “to offer or display for sale any art or craft product in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian etc.” 

But naturally, all these laws are not going to prevent mass-produced clothing lines from creating “Navajo-inspired” products, including Urban Outfitter’s “Navajo Print Fabric Wrapped Flask,” “Peace Treaty Feather Necklace” and “Navajo Hipster Panty” . While Urban Outfitters can go with their defense of selling the objects: “we’re not selling an art or craft” and “the Navajo name is a descriptor” and even “it is cultural appreciation” etc etc (check out this Bingo sheet of excuses) the product names alone represent the stereotypes so ingrained in the American culture. The Navajo Nation responded by suing Urban Outfitters, whom did not apologize but did replace all product names that included ‘Navajo’ with ‘printed.’ 

But with product names like “Peace Treaty Feather Necklace” which so indelicately treads on the violent history between Natives and white Americans and “Navajo Hipster Panty” which is such a perverted way of using the “Navajo” name, it isn't difficult to see why the Navajo tribe responded lividly. But what about everything in between on the spectrum? How does the dreamcatcher hanging above my window and this dreamcatcher design splotched on a t-shirt stand in this argument of misappropriation of a culture?

To put everything into context, I’m going to put everything on a spectrum, just based on my own personal opinion, 1 being cultural appreciation and 10 being downright cultural appropriation.

3 - my dreamcatcher: I can sleep peacefully knowing that “since [dreamcatchers] are cross-cultural items and adapted for contemporary arts and crafts with kids and for sale by multiple tribal artists and schools, there is less concern there.” 

7 – Urban Outfitters “Navajo” products: bc racist, perverted, but only in its use of the Navajo name

8 - The hipster trend of wearing headdresses: even if not in racy bras and underwear (see 10), the trend is so omnipresent and merits serious reconsideration as a fashion statement. In this fantastic website, Native Appropriations, Adrienne addresses all the reasons people cannot just casually wear headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets. 

In the Native American society, people have to earn the honor to wear the feathers, and what more, warbonnets for respected figures of power. Wearing one without earning the honor to wear it takes away its original intent and value, degrading it to an accessory, when an entire society sees the headdress as a cultural artifact with deep spiritual significance. Instead of honoring Native Americans, hipsters are just cavorting drunk and/or high at Coachella in headdresses, giving society another falseimage for the collective conscience of society.

10 - KarlieKloss’s headdress in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion show (despite polls saying 54% of ppl think it’s JUST FINE !!!!!!!!!!): the fact that designers are sexualizing Native women is so so so disgusting considering the sexual violence they suffer, including 1 in 3 raped in their lifetime and 70% of sexual violence against them being committed by non-Natives.

I think what cultural appropriation really comes down to, and why this topic so ardently focuses on this demographic, is the marginalization of the Native American population throughout American history, from genocide to colonialism. Here are Adrienne’s words:

By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.

This feels like a good place to talk about the This American Life script I was talking to you about yesterday so here it is in it's original form, on reconciling what America has done to the Natives but reconciling this with your love for the color coordination of red white and blue / your love for amurica:

The most happiness I find on the trip is when we're in the car and I can blare the Chuck Berry tape I brought. We drive the trail where thousands died, and I listen to the music and think what are we supposed to do with the grisly past? I feel a righteous anger and bitterness about every historical fact of what the American nation did to the Cherokee. But, at the same time, I'm an entirely American creature. I'm in love with this song and the country that gave birth to it.

[MUSIC PLAYING - "BACK IN THE USA" BY CHUCK BERRY]

Listening to "Back in the USA" while driving the Trail of Tears, I turn it over and over in my head. It's a good country. It's a bad country. Good country, bad country. And, of course, it's both. When I think about my relationship with America, I feel like a battered wife. Yeah, he knocks me around a lot, but boy he sure can dance.

To many of the commentators of the articles I've linked, it must feel so easy to deconstruct each article about cultural appropriation just by saying “it’s not a big deal” or “get over it.” It’s such an easy thing to say, as if the commentator is oh-so-level-headed and reasonable. It’s just sooo hard to argue with such astute logic except these articles aren't talking just about what happened 100 years ago, though the genocide and colonialism isn't something to be ignored. They’re talking about today, about the many, many Native American tribes that have been homogenized into something very much commercial. Their culture has been transformed into a pattern, a headdress, a standard Halloween costume. These are stereotypes that feed misunderstanding which in turn is the root of all racism. And again, it’s sooo easy to just say “it’s not a big deal if I wear moccasins, it’s just fashion” but in this regard, you’re not only disrespecting Natives but also yourself. Obviously this is my love for fashion speaking, but I believe fashion is a personal statement. If you have no regard for what you wear or where it may come from, you have no regard for your own identity. Fashion and art are powerful representations of a culture, and if treated respectfully, they can become vehicles for understanding that culture. 

---

I would have linked you to more articles but I couldn't sag-way into them well enough so here they are! 

• come on selena is this bc ur still not over bieber
• how to shop for Native American style clothing wo being a completely asinine turd (includes interesting social /fashion commentary)
• rad rebuttals to jerks on the Internet
• zimmerman trial update ! silver lining !!!! 
• ahhh THIS AMERICAN LIFE's 500th episode download before it disappears 

--

I'm really sorry this is so late so hit me w your best punishment. I can take it. I really wanted to do this essay justice, even though it is a very dense topic and I know I haven't even began to scratch the surface. But I feel a little more informed and I hope you do too!

mwah (cyberkiss) talk to u tomorrow haha

Elina