Is it morally right to fight in Iraq? This question is at the heart of Lt. Ehren Watada’s story, featured in the L.A. Times, October 16, 2006, by Teresa Watanabe.

Watada, 28, is an Army first lieutenant who earlier this year became the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, calling the war illegal and immoral. Although other soldiers have refused deployment, his status as an officer sets his case apart. The Honolulu native of Japanese and Chinese descent faces a general court-martial and up to seven years in prison for charges involving refusal to deploy, criticism of President Bush and “conduct unbecoming of an officer.”

…The elder Watada [Lt. Watada’s father, Bob] said his son joined the Army to help protect the country after 9/11. But when his superiors told him to study up on the Iraq War, Watada concluded that U.S. officials launched it in violation of U.S. and international laws. The turning point, the elder Watada said, was in January, when Ehren heard the father of an injured soldier lament on a radio show: “Why can’t anyone stand up and stop this?” “He thought the guy was talking to him,” Watada said of his son. “He thought he was the person who had to stand up.”

This case is reopening old wounds among Japanese Americans. Most Americans are more likely to know about the internment camps and of the Nisei volunteers who served in the military, rather than the draft resisters derisively labeled as “no-no boys.” Lt. Watada’s refusal to serve in Iraq has touched a nerve among Japanese Americans, particularly among the veterans, despite his willingness to serve in Afghanistan.

… “The Watada case has provoked so much emotion because it raises the question of loyalty, and that question severely tested Japanese Americans during World War II,” said Lane Hirabayashi of UCLA, the first professor in the nation to hold an academic chair dedicated to the study of Japanese internment. “It raises a lot of controversies that I don’t think have ever been fully resolved.” Debate lingers over how Japanese Americans responded after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Even as the attack prompted the internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents in remote camps, thousands of young men and women enlisted in the U.S. military, determined to prove their loyalty. Their service record has made them community icons of mythological proportions. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team and the 100th Battalion, composed mainly of Japanese Americans, became one of the most highly decorated units in U.S. military history.

But a small minority refused to enlist and were harshly ostracized, Hirabayashi said. They included draft resisters who refused to serve unless their civil and constitutional rights were restored. They also included those know as “no-no boys,” for answering negatively to a government loyalty questionnaire asking if they would serve in the U.S. military and renounce allegiance to the emperor of Japan.

Bitterness between the two sides persists today. Hirabayashi and others, for instance, tell tales of brothers who never spoke again after one resisted and the other served. Ellen Endo, editor of Rafu Shimpo, the Los Angeles Japanese newspaper, calls the Watada debate the most emotional community divide she’s seen in four decades.

Nisei and other Asian American veterans deserve respect from their for their valor and service, but uncritical deference blinds us from examining the deeper issues of Asian American identity. To allow uncompromising veterans and pro-war factions to brand Lt. Watada as a modern day “no-no boy” and disavow him from Asian America, is to fail to exorcise the ghosts of the internment camps. It is to say that we Asian Americans must wave the flag more vigorously than whites to prove their loyalty.

Citizenship and patriotism does not equate to flag-waving and blind obedience. Soldiers are sworn to defend their country, but they are also citizens and thereby have responsibility to refuse criminal or immoral orders. If such posture is unpatriotic, shameful, or foolish as some critics call it, I wonder how history would have been so different if the Japanese and German soldiers had taken that same stance in large numbers.

Lt. Watada is not a coward; his physical courage is corroborated by his willingness to deploy to Afghanistan. This case highlights a deficit of moral courage in American society; be it members of the press who evade questioning the morality of going to war in Iraq, or pro-war cohorts who deflect moral responsibility by taking refuge behind the uniform and flag.

In the words of Bill Moyers, “come to think of it, sometimes standing up to your government is to stand up for your country.” Perhaps the time has arrived for us Asian Americans to treat the Watada case as a chance to assert our individuality and independence as a people, rather than treating it as another test of loyalty.

This story can be found in the LA Times, October 16, 2006 by Teresa Watanabe: “Loyal to Country or Consciousness?” / pg. B 1

I’ve written before about how American-style capitalism is inevitably spreading around the globe and influencing traditional Asian cultures. Here’s an another example of that phenomenon: as MSNBC reports, many Chinese business school students are being required to learn how to play golf to help them succeed in international business dealings once they graduate:

“The aim is to help the students find good jobs,” a sports professor at the school, Chen Xiao, was quoted as saying. “Many Chinese business deals are clinched on golf courses.” Elite Peking University set off a debate over whether golf is appropriate for China, where most people still live in poverty, when it announced in August that it was building a practice green. Some students complained the sport was too elitist, but supporters defended it as a healthy social activity.

Ahhh, the long arm of capitalism never ceases to amaze me. I just hope that one staple of the American capitalist system that Asian students don’t learn is how to discriminate against perceived outsiders by erecting glass ceiling barriers in their way.

Debates relating to affirmative action seem to be heating up again. This fall, voters in Michigan will vote on a ballot initiative that would prohibit the use of race or gender in university admissions. In this context, how Asian Americans fit into the equation is also still being debated. As printed at Diverse Issues in Education Magazine, one commentary notes that Asian Americans tend to be consistently portrayed in biased ways regarding how affirmative action affects them:

Real discrimination against Asian Americans is whitewashed, and they are used for strategic purposes to attack other people of color. Ironically, groups that proclaim their belief in color-blindness show themselves readily able to be color-conscious in the most divisive manner. They have no problem pointing at Asian Americans if it suits their cause.

It is this cynicism that has led many Asian Americans who have studied affirmative action to become advocates for it. Law professor Sumi Cho observes that demagogues are trying to turn Asian Americans into “racial mascots” to camouflage an agenda that, if presented by Whites on their own behalf, would look too much like naked self-interest. Law professor Mari Matsuda proclaimed in a famous speech given to the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco, “We will not be used.”

The commentary references an earlier study, about which I previously posted, that documents the real problem facing Asian Americans -- that we are not victims of affirmative action per se, but of plain and simple racial discrimination. That is, Asian American college applicants tend to be held to a higher standard than other applicants for no apparent, justifiable reason.

To prove that point, the study showed that once affirmative action was ended in California, Texas, and Washington, the number of Asian American law school students actually declined, rather than increased as many anti-affirmative action supporters believed. In this context, the real “winners” of ending affirmative action would not be Asian Americans, but Whites since they enjoy other advantages such as legacy clauses that many other applicants don’t.

As a supporter of affirmative action, I hope that ballot initiatives like Michigan’s are defeated. At the same time, the other necessary step is to ensure that Asian American applicants are judged by the same criteria as Whites and other students, rather than being subjected to arbitrarily elevated standards. Finally and at the very least, anti-affirmative action supporters need to stop using Asian Americans as spokespeople because the data clearly does not justify doing so.

During the 2000 and 2004 elections, Republicans were accused of trying suppress minority and immigrant votes in many key states. Whether they are true or not, it’s pretty clear that voter intimidation is more associated with conservatives and Republicans than it is with liberals and Democrats. Are Republicans in fact more likely to try to suppress votes? It certainly doesn’t help their cause with stories like this -- a Republican Vietnamese American candidate has been accused of illegally intimidating Democratic Hispanic voters in California:

[T]he investigation appeared to be focused on the campaign of Tan D. Nguyen, a Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez. The letter, written in Spanish, tells recipients: “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.” In fact, immigrants who are naturalized U.S. citizens can vote. . . .

Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, condemned the letter as “an obnoxious, grotesque piece of work.” “Regardless of who did it -- Republican or Democrat -- if it’s a crime, then whoever did it should be prosecuted,” Baugh said. A group of six Vietnamese-American political candidates running for offices in Orange County issued a joint statement saying: “The content of this mailer is offensive to the immigrant voters, regardless of their ethnicity.”

The note’s letterhead resembles that of an anti-illegal immigration group, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, but group leader Barbara Coe said she told investigators for the attorney general’s office Wednesday that her group didn’t authorize the letter and she didn’t know who sent it. . . . Numerous political leaders including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have denounced the letter and called for the investigations.

Tan Nguyen has denied having any knowledge of this act, instead blaming his one of his campaign workers for unilaterally creating and mailing these flyers. As a Vietnamese American myself, I really want to believe him. However, given how rabid -- and yes even extremist -- many Vietnamese Americans can be in terms of their political expressions, I’m afraid that I’m a little skeptical at his excuse. In fact, I think he’s lying.

If Tan Nguyen is the person responsible for this act, all I have to say is -- Wow. In one fell swoop, Nguyen has managed to (1) commit an illegal fact in violation of federal voting laws, (2) cause his own political party to denounce such actions, (3) mobilized his Democratic opponents to capitalize on such a monumental bonehead move, and (3) embarrass the entire Vietnamese American community, regardless of political beliefs.

Nice job, Tan. You deserve to go down for that -- hard.

It’s not likely that all groups of color share similar political and social views. But just how different are these views between Blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans? A new study by researchers at Northwestern University tries to shed light on this question and finds some interesting patterns:

Affluent Asian Americans are significantly more opposed to affirmative action than poorer Asian Americans. More than half of Asian Americans studied were in the upper-income group. Affluent Asian Americans reported significantly fewer incidents of personal discrimination than poorer Asian Americans. But Asian Americans regardless of income said opportunities are open to them.

Affluent Latinos saw more opportunity and reported few discrimination encounters. But affluent Black people were more likely to support affirmative action, feeling their fate was tied to the fate of lower-income Black people. Black people across incomes agreed that “group opportunities and social conditions remain poor despite individual examples of success.”

“When African Americans achieve higher economic status, they continue to experience discrimination and to evaluate their life prospects in racial terms.” In fact middle-class Black people report more personal discrimination than poor Black people. Maybe partly because poor Black folk aren’t going to fancy restaurants and mixing it up in offices. And if someone treats you like you’re broke and you are, it may not register as discrimination.

In short, for Latinos and Asian Americans, social class seems to have a large influence on one’s political and social views, as the richer you are, the less likely you are to support group-based policies such as affirmative action. However, for Blacks, there seems to be much more uniformity across social classes in terms of their political and social views.

As a sociologist, I also wonder whether the differences between Asians and Latinos on the one hand and Blacks on the other are because there is much more ethnic diversity among Asians and Latinos compared to Blacks and combined with the fact that Blacks share the common ancestral legacy of surviving slavery, that there just isn’t a single uniting historical legacy that unites virtually all Asians or Latinos.

In other words, Chinese Americans may share the historical legacy of systematic exclusion, Japanese Americans may share the legacy of internment, Cubans may share the legacy of the Cuban Revolution, etc. but no single historical episode seems to unite all Asians or all Latinos in the same way that slavery united the histories of Blacks. Perhaps that is why there seems to be less cohesion in terms of political and social views for Asians and Latinos.

As an Asian American scholar, I can attest that this lack of cohesion is one of the main challenges I and others like me face in trying to promote a pan-Asian American identity that would transcend this myriad of ethnic, economic, and historical differences that exist between Asian Americans.

You’ve probably heard by now that according to Census Bureau calculations, earlier today, the U.S. population officially reached the 300 million mark. Of course, there are numerous cultural, economic, and political implications of this accomplishment, but you might be interested to know that as the Springfield Republican reports, when the U.S. population topped 200 million in 1967, an Asian American was proclaimed by Life Magazine as the 200 millionth American:

When [Robert Ken Woo Jr.] was born Nov. 20, 1967, at 11:03 a.m. EST in Atlanta’s Crawford Long Hospital, Life magazine proclaimed him the 200 millionth American. In the years since, he has worn his footnote in history lightly and well. However, his flicker of fame has been fanned anew by the approaching milestone.

“I never took it that seriously,” Woo, now a prosperous lawyer in Atlanta, says of his place in the annals of American trivia. “To me it seemed very random.” . . . Sally Woo awoke after delivery to snapping photographers. . . . One year, Woo remembers, a photographer prostrated himself to get a good shot of him on his bicycle. “I am watching this full-grown man in a suit lying down on my driveway.”

Another year, a photographer appeared at his kindergarten class. “I did not like that at all.” Occasional news stories would alert Georgians to Woo’s progress: The 200 millionth American graduates from Harvard and Harvard Law School. The 200 millionth American becomes the first Asian-American partner at the law firm, King & Spalding.

It’s certainly appropriate that the face of contemporary American society is likely to be multicultural and ethnically diverse. Of course, there will be plenty of people who scoff at the thought that the “average” American in anyone other than White. But as the statistics (and reality) show, for better or for worse, as a proportion of the total population, Whites are shrinking.

However, that is not enough reason to be paranoid or angry. In fact, I can think of plenty of better reasons why Whites (and anybody else for that matter) should be angry at the state of the nation. My point is, rather than who our neighbors are or what race the “average” American is likely to be, the only thing we as Americans need to fear are policies and actions that put each of us in conflict with others.

In other words, if you want to solve a “problem,” get at the cause, don’t just treat the symptoms.

Earlier today, it was announced that the winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize is Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist whose bank has been instrumental in facilitating small business ownership and reducing poverty in Bangladesh:

Muhammad Yunus . . . pioneered the use of microcredit, the extension of small loans to benefit poor entrepreneurs. Grameen Bank has been instrumental in helping millions of poor Bangladeshis, many of them women, improve their standard of living by letting them borrow tiny sums to start businesses.

Loans go toward buying items such as cows to start a dairy, chickens for an egg business, or cell phones to start businesses where villagers who have no access to phones pay a small fee to make calls. “Lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty,” the Nobel Committee said. . . .

Yunus founded Grameen Bank in 1976, after lending $27 out of his pocket to help 42 women in Bangladesh buy weaving stools. . . . Today the bank claims to have 6.6 million borrowers, 97 percent of whom are women, and provides services in more than 70,000 villages in Bangladesh. Its model of micro-financing has inspired similar efforts around the world.

Congratulations to Mr. Yunus and the entire nation of Bangladesh for this inspiring example of how a little generosity can go a long way, in terms of reducing poverty and elevating the morale of an entire nation. I hope this achievement stands as an example that other countries, financial institutions, and affluent individuals to follow.

Is it an advantage or disadvantage to be applying for college as an Asian American? This was one of the questions asked at the recent annual conference of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. As Inside Higher Education reports, meeting’s participants had plenty to say in regard to how Asian Americans are treated compared to other groups when it comes to applying for college admissions:

“Rachel, for an Asian, has many friends.” That’s the kind of line that apparently is turning up more and more in letters of recommendation on behalf of Asian American applicants to top colleges. . . . [M]any in the audience at first seemed angry that in 2006 people would reference race in that way. But when it came time for audience comments, one high school counselor said that counselors feel they have no choice but to mention students’ Asian status and to try to make it seem like their Asian students are different from other Asian students.

“We make those comparisons because we feel it’s the only way we can get through and get our students looked at,” said the counselor, to knowing nods from others in the audience. Many Asian students and their families have for years believed that quotas or bias hinder their chances at top Ivy or California universities. But to listen to panelists — and members of a standing room only audience — the intensity of concern has grown, as has mistrust of the system. . . .

Based on working with institutions where Asian enrollment exceed 25 percent — something that is increasingly common at elite publics in California and top universities elsewhere — she said she hears lots of talk about admissions officers who complain about “yet another Asian student who wants to major in math and science and who plays the violin” or people who say “I don’t want another boring Asian.”

As previous studies have argued and as this article also describes, for whatever reasons, Asian American applicants are evaluated using a different and arbitrarily higher set of standards than other applicants. In other words, the reason why the admissions rates for Asian American applicants is the lowest among all major racial groups is because of racial discrimination, plain and simple.

I can appreciate that colleges don’t want a campus full of students who want to major in math and science and who play the violin. At the same time, I think it’s disgraceful, unacceptable, and yes, racist for college administrators to automatically assume that even if many of their Asian American applicants want to major in math and science and play violin, that they do have any other unique or interesting qualities, interests, or life experiences.

Beyond the simple fact that the category of “Asian American” itself contains many diverse ethnic groups, even Asian Americans who share similar majors can be quite diverse in many other ways. With this in mind, college administrators who reject Asian American applicants based solely on this superficial and misguided criteria are perpetrating racial discrimination based on biased and prejudicial assumptions, pure and simple.