<p>Imo, it is unacceptable when a portrayal paints an entire race in a negative light. That is racism.</p>
<p>I don’t see how portraying a character of a certain race as possessing some stereotypical characteristics of that race is racist. For example, including a Chinese kid in a show who is smart and studious. Would you find that offensive? How about a Black kid who plays basketball in his driveway? A White husband who drinks beer and watches football? </p>
<p>Remember Long Duk Dong from “Sixteen Candles?” We love that character. If you are in our home and someone in our family is starving hungry, you might hear them say, “No more wicky my wacky, the Donger needs food!” I hope you would not be offended by that, as it has nothing to do with being Chinese.</p>
<p>Bottom line; she needs a good ass whooping to learn a lesson. She was ignorant and pathetic for posting the video on YouTube, which is an international website for anyone and everyone. I really do hope she gets expelled from UCLA.</p>
<p>I believe the key here is the WAY and the historical/societal context in which it is done. </p>
<p>Wallace’s way of doing so has long been a classic schoolyard taunt for racist American kids and/or their parents to bully or otherwise put down Asian/Asian-Americans in schools and society at large. It was commonly used against older Asian-American friends who grew up during the 50’s’s and '60’s…and it was still heavily used by racist schoolyard bullies and/or their parents in the 1980’s when I was a kid who was experiencing this BS. Didn’t help that I was one of only two Asian-American kids in a NYC school/neighborhood dominated by working-class White and Hispanic students. </p>
<p>IME, her supposedly “imitating” Asian speech patterns would be considered in most colleges and workplaces about as acceptable as dressing in blackface, yelling racial/ethnic/religious hate epithets at [targeted racial/ethnic/religious minority of choice], etc. </p>
<p>Incidentally, if she pulled this stunt at my private LAC, she’d be placed before the judicial board and would probably face a minimum of a semester’s suspension for violating the student conduct code to clearly show this is unacceptable behavior and ensuring a cooling off period for both her and the targeted groups. That and possibly assigning her a mandatory research essay about the history of prejudice against the targeted group and why her actions were wrong as a result. </p>
<p>The administration, at least, will be amenable to allowing her back provided she has shown sufficient understanding and remorse for her actions. On the other hand…the student body may not be nearly as forgiving and would probably launch campus-wide protests demanding her permanent expulsion…especially if she attended during my time there in the mid-late 1990s.</p>
<p>^Now that you mention all that, I do remember now that some kids way back when I was in grade school did occasionally chant, “Ching chong Chinaman,” but Wallace’s imitation did not remind me of that. Chinese is an extremely difficult language to learn and pronounce, so the “ing” words are likely the simplist sounds for a non-speaker to imitate. I wonder if people would be as outraged if she had used other sounds, like “shay-shay” for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe the First Amendment will allow Ms. Wallace to be punished for her speech in this instance. But she is receiving plenty of punishment in kind on the internet.</p>
<p>Trying to expel her would make her into a “freedom of speech martyr” (and public universities tend to lose these battles in court anyway). But she has punished herself – who would want to hire her when she graduates?</p>
<p>I’ll hazard a guess here and say it’s because not reporting is completely useless for most Asians. Our last names typically give us away. For instance, if you see Li, Hao, Xiao, Huang, Kong, Hsieh, etc. on an application, you’re going to think Chinese or Taiwanese. The same holds true for Indian last names too, and Japanese names tend to be very distinguishable as well, though it depends in large part on how their names are romanized (e.g. Park vs. Paku). Some Koreans are perhaps a little better off - Park and Lee, both very common Korean last names, at least look mildly non-Asian - but I’d say for a good portion of the Asian population, there’s very little point to not reporting your race. Not to mention, if you decide not to, it might look like you’re trying to game the admissions.</p>
<p>This rationale holds true for White students, as well. Most URMs will report their race if they want to take advantage of a possible hook for admissions. So any applicant with a non-Asian last name will most likely and accurately be assumed to be White.</p>
<p>Depends on the exact terms of the college’s code of conduct she and other UCLA students have signed and agreed to as a condition of matriculation/continued enrollment. If those terms do include expulsion for the class of misconduct her behavior happens to fall under…she may not have much of a legal leg to stand on. </p>
<p>After all, an overly simplistic interpretation of the First Amendment could also include some forms of racial/sexual/religious harassment, making death threats, and stalking behaviors that are not only outlawed, but also prosecutable as criminal offenses. </p>
<p>Moreover, even in public/government institutions…there are allowed to restrict certain types of speech if such speech would impair their missions…including providing an education and environment conducive to such ends. </p>
<p>For instance, soldiers have gotten into trouble for religiously proselytizing to subordinates, public employees have gotten in hot water for placing political campaign paraphernalia on their desks, a friend’s acquaintance was fired from his postal service job for religiously proselytizing during work hours, and public school teachers fired for advocating greater sex education in public schools or in some cases…even having a beer during their off-hours. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. For instance, this does not account for the possibility that a URM child was adopted by an Asian-American family and took their surname. </p>
<p>I also knew of an IRL example of how this wasn’t so. One ethnically Indian kid with an Indian surname was able to claim he was “African-American” because his family lived in East Africa for a few decades. </p>
<p>As a result, he managed to gain AA admission to a number of Ivy schools and peer schools. It caused a bit of controversy and plenty of disdainful contempt at his school, especially among actual URM classmates.</p>
<p>In all of these cases, there is either power over subordinates, or the possibility of giving the impression that the organization as a whole endorses a political viewpoint that it does not (although the off-hours beer, if it was off school grounds, sounds like a pretty sketchy excuse). Neither appears to be the case here – would anyone think that her stupid ranting is in any way representative of UCLA, or that she could do anything more than rant, or that she could incite a riot?</p>
<p>Seems like the most likely reaction would be that people laugh at her or think poorly of her, rather than being influenced to take her viewpoint or feel threatened by her or start a riot.</p>
<p>Cobrat- that’s illegal for that student to claim African American. It’s probably not illegal, but it’s morally and ethically incorrect. </p>
<p>Applications ask for ETHNICITY. the Indian child raise by an African American family in east Africa is still indian. </p>
<p>Lots of people do that and get over. There are many whites in south Africa. Their nationality is “white south African” but their race/ethnicity is still “white.”</p>
<p>May I venture to guess that if she were attacking another ethnic minority group in the US that there would be less time wasted on defending her?</p>
<p>The UCLA spokesperson has left the possibility that discussions about discipline may occur in the future. However, the fact they are putting it on the back burner will cause many Asian-Americans and other minority groups to cite this as an indication the school is not taking the situation seriously enough. Some may even go so far as to argue that this shows the UCLA administration is implicitly condoning her misconduct. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this may not be as much of an issue at UCLA considering its large Asian-American population, similar incidents and expressed sentiments as quoted above at other institutions with far fewer racial/ethnic/religious minorities…especially those in the south and rural areas are some reasons why many URM HS and college classmates would never consider going to those institutions for undergrad/grad school. They do not want to attend schools where in addition to standard studies…they’d also have to deal with open prejudicial incidents and an administration which does seemingly little/nothing to deal with the issue. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t illegal as far as I know…though it is certainly considered morally and ethnically dubious conduct. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are a small number of people who conduct themselves in this manner…and are able to get away with it at the undergrad level. However, URM classmates, admissions officers, college admins, and faculty will notice such students with some deciding to note this on the student’s conduct record…which may be examined for grad schools/certain jobs.</p>
<p>What confuses me is why the protests over the Mosque being built in Manhattan were okay, but not this. The former seemed a lot more insensitive than this, especially considering this video was just one person.</p>
<p>[UCLA</a> student who made controversial video says she’ll leave school | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Archive blogs)</p>
<p>Looks like the school discipline discussion is moot. She announced she’s leaving UCLA due to the death threats and “being ostracized from the entire community”. </p>
<p>IMHO, this is not the best development. One, I doubt this will teach her much of a lesson about her actions and more importantly, learning how to try fixing any damage she caused within her school community beyond a proforma apology. Two, this will allow both UCLA and Wallace to avoid having to directly confront, work through, and learn from this incident. A good educational opportunity has been missed here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there was much criticism of the anti-Mosque protesters. However, it was drowned out by right-wing fueled perceptions the Muslims were being insensitive for building a Mosque just a few blocks from Ground Zero where many terrorist victims and rescue personnel died along with the virulent anti-Muslim prejudice/ignorance not too far removed from what Japanese-Americans experienced during WWII. </p>
<p>In the process, those anti-Mosque protesters and their supporting pundits seemed to have forgotten the very First Amendment they are often so quick to cite in other cases.</p>
<p>i agree that it is/was a missed opportunity. but so was the infamous compton cookout (UCSD, 2010), the “die ni**ers” mass e-mail last month (also at UCSD), etc. etc. UC administrators do not want to address the core issue: a growing resentment (among many students, not just white ones) re. the prevalence of asian students on each of the campuses. it’s a VERY COMPLEX issue that they don’t want to touch. unfortunately, these things will keep happening, while the individual (cowardly?) chancellors make boilerplate statements about how this “offends our principles of community” blahblahblah without addressing the real issue: how to make UC more representative of the demographics of the state, without jeopardizing/compromising the integrity of the brand?</p>
<p>They could lobby to repeal Proposition 209 and designate white students as an URM group (which they are in a literal sense at most UC campuses). Imagine the political uproar from that…</p>
<p>The problem is, any talk of racial issues when it is perceived to be a zero-sum game (like the limited number of admission offers to prestigious universities) quickly gets nasty and hostile (often with rhetoric that makes the video in question look tame). So it is not surprising that UC administration does not want to start any discussion that will achieve nothing other than leave everyone angrier at each other than before.</p>