In the world of high-profile Asian Americans, Charles Wang used to be one of the richest and arguably most powerful of them all. He founded Computer Associates (CA) and built an empire that eventually included owning the New York Islanders professional hockey team. Unfortunately he was forced to leave the company he founded a few years ago and is now accused of committing fraud while he was running CA:

The committee was formed to investigate what it called in its report “a massive accounting fraud perpetrated by the Company’s senior-most executives from as far back as the late 1980s through 2001, and their cover-up of that fraud, which lasted through mid-2004.” . . .

The committee’s report charges a “profound failure of leadership” and says it never outgrew a “start-up mentality… that was incompatible with a publicly-traded, multi-billion dollar, international software enterprise.” Furthermore, the report stated, “The fraud pervaded the entire CA organization at every level, and was embedded in CA’s culture, as instilled by Mr. Wang, almost from the Company’s inception.”

The committee charged Wang with causing additional harm to CA by creating a “culture of fear” and surrounding himself with young executives whom he and Kumar could easily dominate.

I’m not a corporate analyst and don’t know all the details surrounding these allegations. My only comment is that it in this instance, an Asian American achieved economic success and attained a high-profile position in America society, only to eventually fall from grace and end up in scandal. Like I said, I don’t know to what degree he’s at fault or whether he’s guilty of the allegations against him — it’s just sad to see one of the early Asian American corporate successes end up like this.

Diversity Inc. magazine has come out with its annual list of top 10 companies for Asian American workers, based on the percent Asian composition of boards of directors, its general work force, new hires, management, along with pay, rates of promotion and retention, and finally, work/life benefits and employee-resource groups. Their top 10 are:

1. Cummins
2. Ernst & Young
3. Novartis
4. Pricewaterhouse Coopers
5. MetLife
6. Coca Cola
7. Merrill Lynch
8. Bank of America
9. Proctor & Gamble
10. Wells Fargo

My expertise is not with business management or the corporate world, so I guess I’ll have to take their word for it. One observation did pop out at me though — most of these companies are in the accounting and financial services industry, which only accounts for a small portion of all Asian workers. I bring this up because there are a significant proportion of Asian and Asian American workers in technical, science, and research-related industries, but no companies from that sector are in this top 10 list. Hmmm . . .

How about my readers out there — does anybody have any personal experience with any of these companies and how they treat their Asian/Asian American workers?

I was rather surprised to learn that Seung-Hui Cho was not the first high-profile school shooter in recent American history. In fact, 15 years ago, another young Asian American student at Simon Rock College (in Massachusetts) named Wayne Lo shot and killed two people on campus and wounded four others. Newsweek magazine recently interviewed him to get his reaction to the shootings at Virginia Tech:

Newsweek: What was your reaction when you heard about the Virginia Tech shooting?
Wayne Lo: When they said it was a perpetrator who was Asian, that really shocked me. The stereotype is that Asians don’t do these things. The Secret Service came and interviewed me for a report on school shooters that they put out in 2002, and even they said Asians don’t really do this.

Did you relate to Seung-Hui Cho because you’re both Asian?
At first I thought it was just a coincidence, but as more details came out, there were just too many eerie similarities to me. He was an immigrant, like myself. The events leading up to the shooting, the warning signs he gave out really reminded me of what happened at Simon’s Rock. They said he had mental-health issues. I don’t really think I had mental-health issues, but I did give out those warning signs. He harassed women, and I also had an incident where I was accused of stalking a female classmate. He went and purchased a gun at a store 40 minutes out of town; so did I. He wrote papers that got people’s attention; I did that, too. . . .

Do you think that Cho’s writings should have been more of a red flag than they were?
It’s ludicrous that they didn’t stop this guy with all the warning signs. I mean, come on, I did this 15 years ago. I was one of the first school shooters. The question is, how don’t we learn from it? They’ve done studies; they know the typical warning signs now. How could they not see this coming? . . .

You also mentioned relating to Cho because you are both immigrants.
The issue of mental health and stuff like that is not talked about in the Asian community, even within families. It puts a lot of pressure on you as a young person. As it builds up and builds up and builds up, [Cho] acted out just like I did. Asians tend to be passive aggressive: we don’t get in fights, so it doesn’t come out in little bits; it all comes out in one big act.

For someone who committed a heinous, unforgivable act, Lo actually makes a lot of good points in this interview. He pointed to authorities missing warning signs that could have prevented Cho’s rampage, and to how the strong stigma associated with mental illness may have prevented Cho from getting the psychological and emotional help that he desperately needed.

Finally, he makes a point that should ring true for everyone involved — with all of these schools shooting that have taken place within the past 15 or so years, haven’t we learned anything from them? Or more specifically, why couldn’t we have used what we’ve learned to prevent Cho from doing what he did?

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Virginia v. Loving Supreme Court decision which struck down state restrictions against interracial marriage. Since that time of course, interracial marriage has been burgeoning, particularly among Asian Americans. As a reflection of this anniversary, various studies and articles are coming out that discuss various issues related to interracial families. As reported by LiveScience.com, one study reports that interracial parents tend to spend more time and money on their kids than do monoracial parents:

Biracial (aka interracial or multiracial) parents are more likely than their “monoracial” counterparts to provide their children with a home computer, private schooling and educational books and CDs and to make sure they participate in reading activities, dance, music or art lessons outside of school and get trips to the zoo, library and other cultural venues. . . .

The advantage, or higher investment, can be explained as a counterweight or response to the social challenges faced by interracial couples . . . “They face challenges in being a couple,” [the authors of the study] said in a prepared statement. “They’re aware of the challenges their children will be facing. In turn, they try to compensate for this.” . . .

[The study] found one exception to the “biracial advantage.” Black father/white mother families tend to invest fewer resources into kids than do black monoracial couples and white monoracial couples.

The study appears in the American Journal of Sociology, a very well-respected academic journal, so I presume that the authors controlled for social class in their study. Social class of course would make a big difference — those who are wealthier obviously would be in a better position to “invest” more in their kids. For now and until I read the study myself, I will presume that the families’ social class was factored into the study.

I initially had some misgivings about the article’s headline that interracial parents invest more in their kids, but the reasoning does seem plausible — that because of lingering cultural/social opposition to interracial marriages, those who are interracially married are likely to give their children more emotional and material resources to deal with that lingering hostility that monoracial families don’t have to face.

What’s the “takeaway” message here? I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that interracial parents are inherently “better” parents just because they “invest” more in their kids. Instead, I think the message here is that contrary to some public opinions about interracial parents (particularly among those who oppose such marriages) that interracial marriages create confusion and conflict among parents and children (with each other and individually), the data show that interracial parents seem to be well aware of the extra challenges they face and are doing what they can to prepare their children to effectively face those challenges.

The fallout from Seung-Hui Cho’s murderous shooting rampage at Virginia Tech is already being felt — an Asian American high school student in the Chicago area, Allan Lee, has been charged with “disorderly conduct” for submitting a creative writing assignment that his teacher found “disturbing.” The linked article above contains the actual text of his writings. Here are some excerpts:

Blood sex and Booze. Drugs Drugs Drugs are fun. Stab, Stab, Stab, S…t…a…b…, poke. “So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone…, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did.” Umm, yeah, what to wright about…… I’m leaving to join the Marines and I really don’t give a [expletive] about my academics, so why does the only class that’s complete [expletive], happen to be the only required class…enough said. . . .

My current English teacher is a control freak intent on setting a gap between herself and her students like a 63 year old white male fortune 500 company CEO, and a illegal immigrant. If CG was a private catholic school, I could understand, but wtf is her problem. And baking brownies and rice crispies does not make up for it, way to try and justify yourself as a good teacher while underhandidly looking for complements on your cooking. No quarrel on you qualifications as a writer, but as a teacher, don’t be surprised on inspiring the first cg shooting.

You can judge for yourself whether his teacher’s and high school’s reactions were appropriate. My personal view — even though his writings did not contain any specific threat to any individual or groups of people, I did find them a little disturbing. Especially given what took place at Virginia Tech and how the warning signs about Cho’s violent writings went unheeded, I am not surprised that Allan’s writing attracted some extra attention.

However, I do not think it was appropriate to arrest him and charge him with disorderly conduct. To me, that is an overreaction that is unfortunately based on Allan’s racial similarity to Seung-Hui Cho. I think a more appropriate response would have been to contact his parents and have an immediate meeting with them and psychologists so that they can get an honest assessment of his mental and emotional state, rather than automatically declaring him a threat to society and having him arrested.

Being more diligent in the wake of the VIrginia Tech shooting is one thing — overreacting and immediately condemning Allan as a criminal is a whole other matter.

—————————————————————————————————–

Update: As reported by the Associated Press, on May 5, Allen Lee was reinstated by his school district, who will also recommend that all criminal charges against be dropped:

“The decision to readmit Lee, an honors student with a 4.2 grade-point average, followed negotiations with school district officials, said attorney Dane Loizzo. “We all reached the same conclusion, which is that he’s not a threat and never was a threat and he should be treated as such,” said Loizzo.

For many Asian Americans, parent-family relationships can be a little tricky as each side tries their best to negotiate generational differences and the complex process of assimilating into American society and carving out a new life and identity for themselves in a new social environment. As the Orange County Register points out, one evolving trend is how many adult Asian Americans have now come full circle and are now reaching back to help out their parents:

It is not unusual for adult children in Asian families to contribute money to their parents on a monthly basis to help pay for their parents’ mortgages and other living expenses. “It is the ultimate symbol of gratitude that a child can show to his parents,” said Cal State Fullerton professor Son Kim Vo. “In the Vietnamese culture, it shows the complete cycle of a family. Parents raise their children, and now the children give back.” . . .

Among those who do give their parents money, there is another half-joke that those who give the most money receive the most love from their parents. “In a weird way, it is kind of like buying the parents’ love and approval,” Mai said. “I don’t want to say it, but it’s true.”

Tracy Pham, 34, of Garden Grove, said it can raise feelings of resentment among siblings. “My two sisters make way more money than I do, so they can afford to give my parents more,” said Pham, a hairstylist. “So, in my parents’ eyes, I know I’m not respected as much as my other sisters, and I feel like I can never measure up.”

For many immigrant families, Asian or otherwise, there does seem to be a consistent (although not universal) cycle of the second generation wanting to separate from their parents because they represent “old” or “foreign” ways, whereas the children just want to be like their (predominantly White) friends. Then somewhere in college, many young Asian Americans eventually rediscover their racial/ethnic identity and pride and come to finally appreciate the love their parents have for them. Then as adults, they then try to “repay” their parents back in whatever ways they can.

As an Asian American immigrant, scholar, and parent myself, I have seen this pattern over and over again and it always warms my heart each time to see each generation reconnecting with the other. The process may not be completely smooth at times, but ultimately, the results usually represent a positive reinforcement of not just the bond between family members, but also the bond of ethnic solidarity within each Asian/immigrant community.

You may remember Yul Kwon was the winner of the Survivor series that initially divided teams by racial group. His victory was seen as a significant accomplishment and source of pride by many Asian Americans. Yul has since continued to demonstrate his acute understanding of his social environment, as shown in an interview he recently conducted with the Asia Society in New York City:

As you can see, he verbalizes many of the same points that I made in my previous posts about the Virginia Tech tragedy, but with a particular emphasis from his point of view as a Korean American. Kudos to Yul and the Asia Society for helping to educate us about these important issues.

A regular reader asked me to help him publicize an online survey he’s conducting for his dissertation research on Asian Americans. If you complete the survey, you are eligible to possibly win a $50 gift card or cash:

Dear Asian-Nation Visitors,

My name is Derek Iwamoto and I am a doctoral student at the Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln. I am writing to enlist your help with collecting data for a research study examining the relationship between ethnic identity, racial identity, values, perceived discrimination and psychological well-being among Asian Americans. Completion of the online survey will take approximately 15-35 minutes. You will not be individually compensated for your participation however you can enter yourself in a raffle for a 1/50 chance to win $50 cash or Bestbuy/Target gift cards.

Also if you can forward this link to your friends and colleagues that would be much appreciated. Thank you.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=104033735282

The Don Imus incident seems to having a ripple effect for the benefit of people of color in general, and as CBS News reports, for Asian Americans in one particular case, as two White radio show hosts have been suspended indefinitely after making anti-Asian and anti-Chinese remarks on the air:

The hosts of the daily morning show, WFNY-FM’s “The Dog House With JV and Elvis,” have been suspended indefinitely without pay. . . . Local chapters of the Organization of Chinese Americans, an advocacy group, released a statement Sunday protesting the segment. By Monday, California State Sen. Leland Yee and others joined the campaign.

In the segment, broadcast on April 5 and again last week, a caller to a Chinese restaurant intersperses an order for takeout with lewd language and racial slurs. The caller tells one female employee he wants to come to the restaurant to see her naked and refers to a part of her body as “hot, Asian, spicy.”

The caller attempts to order “shrimp flied lice” and refers to a male employee as “Chinese man” before claiming himself to be a student of kung fu. At one point he refers to a part of the employee’s body as a “tiny egg roll.”

Kudos to all those who fought to make these radio hosts accountable for their racist actions. It would indeed have been a double standard if people had they not been punished after what happened to Don Imus. Ignorance and racism is the same, regardless of who it’s directed at.

Let this also be a lesson to public personalities out there that Asian Americans are no longer easy targets — we will fight back and we will demand justice!

—————————————————————————————————–

Update: The Associated Press reports that on May 14, CBS announced that the “Dog House with JV and Elvis” show has been officially canceled, although there is no official word whether the two deejays still work for CBS. Kudos to CBS for doing the right thing in canceling the show, but there’s still one last step: fire the deejays.

At the risk of overanalyzing the events surrounding the shootings at Virginia Tech last week, I would like to offer one last set of observations. In my previous posts, I’ve acknowledged that certainly, there are many complicated emotions and reactions to these tragic events. This also applies to Koreans and Korean Americans, for whom this event stirs up additional feelings that include guilt, shame, and embarrassment based on the fact that the gunman was Korean American.

As one article from New American Media describes, many Koreans felt that Cho’s murderous rampage tarnished the image of Koreans and Korean Americans and that it would lead to a backlash against them. Korean government officials have also issued repeated apologies, perhaps fearing that an association with Cho would interfere with their diplomatic and/or economic relations with Americans.

In talking about this particular issue with my Korean American colleagues, many of them observe that for whatever reasons, many Asian Americans in general, but Koreans in particular, are very quick to personalize and internalize the high-profile public failures of anyone identified as Korean or Korean American, and to therefore feel a deep and profound sense of humiliation and guilt about such events. The implication is that somehow, the entire Korean/Korean American community is “responsible” or “at fault” in some way for Cho’s actions.

In contrast, many Koreans/Korean Americans, particularly younger or more “Americanized” members, feel that while they obviously share in the shock, grief, and sorrow regarding the tragic events at Virginia Tech, their community should not have to feel that they are somehow responsible for what Cho did just because he was Korean American, in the same way that Whites as a collective group were not responsible for the shooting massacre at Columbine High School eight years ago, nor any of the other high-profile school shootings in recent American history.

I happen to agree with that sentiment, but I think it’s a more complicated issue than that.

The question that comes to mind for me is, where do we as Asian Americans draw the line between shared guilt versus group solidarity? In other words, in most other respects, many Asian Americans including myself have consistently tried to encourage a sense of pan-Asian American unity and solidarity. This effort is based on the notion that in emphasizing our commonalities and uniting as a collective group, Asian Americans can speak with a louder and more powerful collective voice in American society, rather than as isolated individuals or ethnicities.

But with that in mind, is it then a contradiction to disassociate ourselves from Seung-Hui Cho in this case, and basically say that he wasn’t “one of us” and to reject any insinuation that his ethnicity had anything to do with his actions (which would also imply that some Asian American may share some of his feelings of alienation, etc.)?

Ultimately, I don’t think that it has to be an either-or proposition. That is, we can still say that ultimately Cho’s actions should be understood as the aberrant behavior of an extremely troubled individual, while at the same time saying that his mental illness could have been made worse by feeling like an outsider and ridiculed for being different — sentiments that inevitably do exist among many Asian Americans.

Thankfully, even though many Asian Americans may have similar feelings of alienation, they do not react by going on a murderous rampage. Nonetheless, we as Asian Americans should recognize and advocate that (1) we be treated with respect and tolerance — especially those who might be otherwise seen as outcasts, (2) members of our community who are emotionally troubled be actively encouraged to seek help, and (3) mental health services should be readily available and culturally-competent.

These efforts would go a long way in preventing not just tragic incidents like this, but also in reducing the difficulties many Asian American face in the complicated process of finding our identity within the complicated American racial landscape.

Following up on my last post about Seung Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, the evidence that’s coming out seems to suggest that among other things, he felt ridiculed for his social class background (at least in comparison to the ‘rich’ kids that he railed against in his suicide note and video) and for being quiet — but apparently not specifically for being Asian.

In other words, it does not seem that he was lashing out in reaction to incidents of racial prejudice or discrimination. I personally feel somewhat relieved to know that prejudice can now be removed from the equation. Why is that comforting to know? Because to me, it means that Asians and Koreans on the one hand, will not have to engage in the “blame game” with non-Asians on the other (specifically those who would have been the perpetrators of prejudice against him).

Nonetheless, a different aspect to the media’s coverage of his situation has gotten my attention and that of many others. Specifically, a lot of analysts, commentators, and observers have brought up the fact that he originally immigrated to the U.S. from Korea. One example of this is to refer to him in the traditional Asian way of using the surname first — Cho Seung-Hui, instead of the American version– Seung-Hui Cho.

Does his immigrant status make a difference in trying to understand what he did?

For many Asian Americans, the answer is no. First of all, even though he was originally from South Korea, he immigrated at a relatively early age — 8. According to sociologists and demographers, that makes him part of the “1.5 generation” — in between the first generation (that would be his parents) and the second generation (those born in the U.S.).

The distinction of being 1.5 generation also includes being raised and socialized primarily as an American. In other words, most of his formative schooling took place in the U.S. and by all accounts, he was perfectly fluent in English. In fact, he was so Americanized that he majored in English, rather than majors normally associated with Asian immigrants such as engineering, math, the ‘hard’ sciences, etc.

So why is it that so many people commented and even focused so intently on the fact that he originally immigrated from South Korea?

I think the answer is that they were consciously or unconsciously trying to culturally distance themselves from him. In other words, by emphasizing that he was an immigrant, they were basically saying “He was a foreigner, an outsider — he wasn’t one of us, he wasn’t a ‘real’ American. ‘Real’ Americans would never have done something like this.”

That is, even though he was basically socialized as an American, much of America refuses to accept that he was in fact an American. And with underlying sentiments like that, they only function to reinforce notions of Korean Americans and Asian Americans as perpetual foreigners. In other words and unfortunately, many Asian Americans still need to overcome the perception that they are not “real” Americans.

This particular stereotype exists even though many Asian American families have been in the U.S. several generations, even though we tend to be the most educated racial group in the U.S., even though we are the group most likely to have high-skilled jobs, and even though on the family level, we have the highest income of all racial groups.

Of course, there are specific ethnic differences in this generalization, but the point is that in virtually all other respects of what it means to be an “American,” we meet or exceed those standards. But for various reasons, most of which have to do with our skin color and distinct physical appearance to be perfectly blunt, we’re more likely to be seen as foreigners.

That is exactly what is going on in this instance, with the American media’s focus on Cho’s immigrant status. In trying to distance ‘real’ Americans from him, American society is only reinforcing the notion that Asian Americans are not ‘real’ Americans. In the end, even though we may grieve and cry just like the rest of American society, we still have to pay a price for what he did.

By now, I’m sure everybody has heard of the tragedy that took place yesterday, Monday April 16, at Virginia Tech University. Words cannot adequately convey the profound shock and sadness that I feel about this unthinkable human catastrophe. As an educator, a parent — as a human being — I am struggling to come to grips with the enormity of what happened but at the least, I want to convey my deepest, most sincere condolences to everyone affected by these killings.

You may have also heard that gunman has been officially identified as an Asian American — Seung-Hui Cho, a 23 year old senior English major at Virginia Tech who originally immigrated from South Korea in 1992.

The Associated Press article cited above notes that he was referred to school counselors after his instructors found his creative writing rather disturbing. The Chicago Tribune also reports that he apparently left a rambling suicide note that railed against “‘rich kids,’ ‘debauchery’ and ‘deceitful charlatans’ on campus” and that he had committed several strange and violent acts in recent weeks.

As a sociologist and Asian American Studies scholar, I will try to to put some sociological context into this horrific tragedy and several initial reactions come to mind:

If the gunman were White, his racial identity would go virtually unnoticed and unmentioned. However, because he was a person of color, much will probably be made of his racial identity. Specifically, because he was Asian American, much of the nation’s attention will be turned to examining what kinds of cultural characteristics may have influenced his behavior.

Also, inevitably, there will be some extreme reactions from xenophobes and people with anti-immigrant positions, perhaps along the lines of “This is what happens when we let in all kinds of immigrants, so we need to shut down our borders” or “We let in these damn foreigners and give them a chance at a better life and this is how they return the favor?” In addition, those who have anti-Asian sentiments are likely to say something like “Well, this just proves that Asians are so weird, foreign, and inscrutable –we just can’t trust them.”

Unfortunately these sorts of opinions are a classic example of confounding individual traits with group traits. In other words, yes, this one particular immigrant was responsible for this tragedy, but that does not mean that all immigrants or all Asian Americans are ticking psychopathic timebombs just waiting to go on a murderous rampage.

More likely, I think typical reactions will be along the lines of “Wow, I always thought Asian Americans were so quiet and passive” or “As an Asian, he must have been under a tremendous amount of pressure to do well in school.” Admittedly, these types of responses are a little harder to respond to because there are some kernels of truth to these particular sentiments.

For example, some Asian Americans do tend to be quiet and unassuming, although that is changing and also, much of these perceptions are based on biased media portrayals and cultural stereotypes. Nonetheless, the perception — whether it’s true or not — of Asians being quiet does exist. Similarly, it is also true that many Asian Americans, particular students, do experience a lot of pressure to succeed. In fact, I’ve written about such examples before and other barriers many Asian American students regularly face.

To this mix, we can also add other examples in which various social pressures or contentious incidents have pushed Asian Americans over the edge, causing them to snap and commit murder. But does that mean that Asians are more prone to psychotic episodes that result in them killing those around them?

My answer is, absolutely not. If anything, I believe the opposite is true — that despite having to frequently deal with various incidents of prejudice, hostility, and outright racism, the vast majority of Asian Americans react with dignity, courage, and perseverance. Perhaps too many still keep their emotions buried inside them and need to share their frustrations more openly in order to move beyond them, but as a group, I think that in the face of persistent examples of inequality and injustice, we do not react more violently than any other group.

Did the Virginia Tech gunman’s reasons include having to deal with racism as an Asian American? At this point, I don’t know. But if that turns out to be the case, my reaction would be the same as it was in the case of Chai Soua Vang, the Hmong American convicted of killing six White hunters in Wisconsin after a hostile encounter that allegedly contained anti-Asian profanities.

That is, many of us Asian Americans face racism as well, but we don’t go on murderous shooting rampages. In other words, my point is that ultimately, what Seung-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech was an example of someone who was clearly emotionally unstable and that he just snapped for whatever reasons known only to him.

I would not be a sociologist if I did not also point to the culture of violent masculinity that frames mass shootings like this. My UMass Amherst colleague Sut Jhully has produced several acclaimed documentaries that detail this phenomenon, most notably the video Tough Guise. For now, I will leave it up to him and others who have greater expertise in this particular sociological context to contribute their analysis.

In the end, this entire episode is an opportunity to remind Asian Americans and anyone else out there who are facing emotional issues or challenging situations that there are resources out there for them to access in order to more constructively deal with those pressures before they get out of hand. Suffering in silence doesn’t help anyone.