The Controversial Confucius Institute

In 2004, the Confucius Institute (CI) program was established with a mission to spread knowledge of Chinese language and culture around the world. Along with rising numbers of people interested in studying the language, these academic centers have hired and trained teachers, designed curriculum for teaching Chinese and educated people worldwide about fast-growing China. The institutes have also sought to promote friendly international relations and trade.

Chow Yun-fat as Confucius, still a figure of interest almost 2600 years after the Chinese sage’s birth

Sponsored by the Chinese government as part of the Ministry of Education, these nonprofit public institutes are run in universities, colleges, and secondary schools. The first campus opened in Seoul, South Korea, and today there are over 350 Confucius Institutes in dozens of nations. Most of these educational centers are located in the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The University of Chicago, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Stanford University, and Purdue University are just a few of the schools in partnership with Confucius Institute.

However, this growing number of institutes has also met with backlash.

China’s Confucius Institutes have been known to spread Communist propaganda through cultural exchanges at host schools. The United States and other nations in the West have criticized these government-run institutes for limiting academic freedom, keeping tabs on Chinese students studying abroad, and seeking to spread the country’s own viewpoints on controversial topics. Issues that avoid discussion include the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and China’s relations with Tibet and Taiwan. There have also been questions regarding Confucius Institute’s quality of teachers and academics.

Just last month, the American Association of University Professors requested that universities partnered with Confucius Institutes either terminate or reexamine their relations with these branches of the Chinese government. They argue that by allowing the Chinese government to control their methods of teaching, these universities in the United States have risked losing their integrity. Instead of being limited by these institutes’ narrow curriculum, restricted from meaningful debates, and controlled by tight staff hiring procedures, American institutions should fight for their belief in academic freedom in all teachings and research. If the Confucius Institute continues to clash with this notion of academic freedom, then schools should sever ties with the program.

China issues a special stamp for the Confucius Institute, trotting out its #1 ambassador

There have been happenings regarding those accusations. In 2012, former Confucius Institute instructor Sonia Zhao reported discrimination against her because of her faith in Falun Gong. Zhao asserted how her employment contract explicitly prevented her from associating with the spiritual discipline, which is regarded as a threat by the Chinese Communist Party. The school where she worked, McMaster University in Canada, sided with Zhao and declined to renew its contract with Confucius Institute the following year. When the Dalai Lama planned to speak at North Carolina State University in 2009, the occasion drew opposition from Confucius Institute, and the university ended up cancelling the event.

In the United States and other nations where academic freedom is crucial, Confucius Institute’s restrictions may not be accepted for much longer. With the support of many American universities at risk, perhaps it is time for something to be changed.

For Many Students, When Summer Starts – So Does School

“What are you doing this summer?”

When a lot of Asian students are asked this question, “summer school” – followed by a glum look – is a typical response. For many children, “summer” means attending fun camps, traveling with family, or relaxing at home without the stress of schoolwork. But for many other students, “summer” means getting ready for more school.

Elite high school entrance exams, the SAT, ACT, or simply keeping busy are all reasons why so many Asian parents send their children to “cram schools” during the two-month vacation.

Homework and summer studies are now the norm for more students, starting at younger age

I grew up in Bergen County, New Jersey, in a small suburban town with a large Asian population. Since early elementary school, classmates attended afterschool programs to brush up on their math and reading skills. Hagwon and buxiban (“cram schools” in Korea and Taiwan/Mainland China, respectively, who have made their way across the Atlantic to the U.S.) were commonly heard words.

In the midst of fractions and phonics in third grade, students would be busy solving for variables and reviewing vocabulary flashcards. When other students played sports and attended Girl Scout meetings as extracurriculars, many Asian students headed to Kumon, C2 Education, and Honors Review.

Of course, the SAT was a huge focus when high school started. At my high school, many Asian students were sent off to SAT prep schools for at least one summer. Though attending school eight hours a day for seven weeks may not seem like a very appealing summer activity to most teenagers, I felt pressure to enroll in SAT courses because everyone around me was doing so, and if I didn’t spend that extra time preparing for the exam, I would definitely fall behind.

New meaning to a “working” holiday – is this what we’ve come to?

I have lived in my hometown all my life, and over the years, I’ve noticed more and more Asian-owned learning centers opening up. A growing number of parents are investing money into their children’s education by sending them to these for-profit academies. Children are being tutored for longer periods of time, and they are also starting younger.

This phenomenon stems from East Asian countries and the high value they place on quality education. Students in East Asia continue to outperform their Western counterparts in academic performance and international exams. When their children are very young, many Asian parents begin to emphasize the value of education.

The summer after my first year of college, I taught English to underprivileged elementary school students in rural southern Taiwan. Though many of these children’s parents worked long hours for little pay, a lot of my students attended buxiban after six hours of English class every day.

When I was a teacher’s assistant at an English-Mandarin bilingual school with a large percentage of Chinese-American students, I noticed that many children rushed off to tutoring programs when the school day ended. But what really opened my eyes while interning at the school was though most students there were born into low-income immigrant families, the teachers were excellent, children were enthusiastic about learning, and attendance was near-perfect.

Whether it is doing vocabulary drills or solving equations, when summer finally rolls around, it is certain that many students will be busier than ever.

Growing Up as a Chinese-American

I am an ABC, an “American-Born Chinese.” My parents were born in China, but I was born in California.

California has long had a vibrant Asian population; I blissfully grew up in an Asian bubble. Kids did not tease me on the playground nor did they pull the corner of their eyes while chanting pseudo-Chinese sounding words.

Hey. Kids are jerks.

The dichotomy that many Asian-Americans expressed while growing up somewhat baffled me: I couldn’t relate to the hardships they faced in trying to become “more American.” I did not understand why they would feel embarrassed to use chopsticks in public, or why they would opt for the “all-American” burger or slice of pizza at lunchtime. I was not ashamed of my Chinese heritage and I openly practiced them without the need to hide my roots. I used chopsticks along with forks and knives in the same meal; I added wasabi peas to trail mix and brought it to school for snack time. For lunch, I ate chow mein with hot dog bits.

I felt that my Chinese practices and American practices seamlessly fused together. Growing up, I did not push aside the Chinese side of myself.

But I wanted to.

It would mean leaving behind the discipline and pragmatism. My parents avoided all frivolous expenditure that they believe would distract me from my studies. They saw vacations as something that would divert my focus from school and make me long for “fun”, so I stayed home during school breaks and learned the multiplication tables instead of going to Disneyland. I did not have stuffed animals or game consoles: such toys had no place in our household. Nor did I have jewelry and accessories. My parents were not going to encourage me to be some flirty “party girl” who cared more for fun than academics.

Diversity even in sleepovers

That goes to say, I did not enjoy the themes of the American “coming to age” culture: sleepovers, parties, dating. I wanted my childhood to be about the whims and enjoyments that categorize mainstream American youth, but it was an unrequited fascination.

Yet, I don’t resent my upbringing, though I do wonder whether I would be the person I am today without it. Would I still have the habit of compromising more than I should? Would I be more vocal with my thoughts and opinions? Would a more liberal upbringing have made me more self-confident? Would I still have had my eating disorder?

I know that I am who I am today because of my parents and how they raised me. I am grateful for my family and for the part they have played in making me the person I am proud to be today, shortcomings and all.

Where Do You Stand on Affirmative Action?

Recent talks surrounding affirmative action in college admissions have stirred up debates among racial and ethnic groups. Earlier this year, the proposed California Constitutional Amendment SCA 5 aimed to repeal Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996 and amended the state constitution by banning consideration of race, sex, and ethnicity in school admissions, public employment, and other areas in the public sector.

If passed, SCA 5 would have once again allow race-based affirmative action at public universities in California. However, the vote on SCA 5 was postponed.

In Michigan, the ban on affirmative action remains in effect after a Supreme Court ruling this past April. Though decisions regarding affirmative action have been made, its policies are still widely disputed and draw criticism from many members of the Asian-American community.

Affirmative action was proposed to promote equality and prevent discrimination namely among racial minorities, but a lot of people argue that race-conscious admissions hurt Asian-American students. For decades, Asian Americans have dealt with the “model minority” stereotype: the belief that they are the most successful group of students, excelling in academics and extracurricular activities while at school and then succeeding economically later on in life.

Where do you stand on affirmative action?

Race-conscious admissions draw swift opposition from the Asian-American community and students because their chances of being admitted to selective universities may be slashed. They agree that if students work hard in school and do well, they should have a chance of being admitted to selective institutions, no matter what.

However, the argument for affirmative action in college admissions persists.

For example, in California’s state universities, black, Latino, and Southeast Asian students are greatly underrepresented – but the East Asian student population is highly represented. Others argue that the “model minority stigma” is simply a myth: affirmative action caters to the educational needs of many Asian students, as a significant number of Asian-Americans do not excel at academics, and Southeast Asian subgroups are still underrepresented at many U.S. universities.

Proponents also assert that affirmative action creates a diverse environment for students to learn from each other. Additionally, the student body in many schools is not an accurate representation of the racial/ethnic population in surrounding areas. Affirmative action in college admissions gives hardworking individuals a chance to receive a high-quality education.

Indeed, deliberations over affirmative action have been hotly contested in the past few decades. Today, many people worry that race-conscious admissions would hurt people of color, whose acceptance into college may be seen as helped by these policies favoring them. Others propose that economic-based affirmative action may be a better way to create more diversity in schools. Though cases regarding affirmative action have been decided, there is no doubt that the education ruling will remain a controversial issue for years to come.

Boston University’s College of Communications Develops Program for International Students from China

Last month, Professor Stephen Quigley and his colleagues sat in a classroom at the College of Communication (COM) at Boston University with a few Chinese students and took notes on what they were talking about.

This July, the professors are planning to launch an online-to-offline program called the Digital Learning Initiative to help incoming international students from China prepare for the new environment of studying at COM and in the U.S.

The College of Communications at Boston University

“It seems like over the last five years or so, COM has seen a fairly dramatic uptake of international students, and Chinese language-speaking students in particular,” said Quigley, during an interview. Quigley is an Associate Professor in the Public Relations program at COM.

In an overview of BU, in the fall of 2008, 42 of 4,131 freshman came from China. Five years later, the number of Chinese freshman grew to 410 of 3,807 freshmen, and is one-third of the whole international student pool.

Quigley started to develop a concern that there was an imbalance emerging. “COM has been benefiting from all these students. But are we investing sufficiently in those students?”

“A Chinese-language speaking student who is extremely bright and gets great grades comes to COM, does really well, and graduates; he or she may get to work in the U.S. for couple of years. And perhaps they struggle to get that job, not because they aren’t smart, not because they’re not motivated enough, but because of fundamental language challenges,” he said. “And that makes me really sad.”

Then, he found a breakthrough to launch a program to help those students.

The project combines online and face-to-face discussion. The content will be heavily focused on writing and will touch upon the culture of the classrooms at COM, at BU, and in the U.S. Through the Internet, current Chinese students will participate in the project by helping new, incoming students with information or questions they may have. With the help of professors, training on writing skills will be provided.

Once the students arrive at BU, the online meetings will switch to face-to-face. “I love that idea,” said Quigley.

This program is not the first effort made by COM professors to help international students accustom themselves to American culture and English-centric studies. Christopher Daly, an Associate Professor in the Journalism department, has been running a program for about 15 years for newly arrived international graduate students from other countries. The program is a one-semester class for journalism students to learn about the American culture and to resolve any question about their studies. Daly also participates in COM’s new seed program.

The program for Chinese students will last for one year. More details have yet to be settled.

Main image: China Photos/Getty Images

Immigrants from the East Arrived on the West

Being a nation of immigrants has long been a point of controversy for the United States. The idea of immigrants overcoming discrimination and hardship to achieve the American dream, however, is generally dear to the hearts of most Americans. Unsurprisingly, stories of struggling immigrants coming to the United States and arriving on Ellis Island are cherished. Stories of those arriving from the opposite side of the country, though, are less heard. Europeans arrived from the Atlantic Ocean, but Asians arrived from the Pacific and they ended up in Ellis’ counterpoint: Angel Island.

Poetry carved onto the walls of detention barracks at Angel Island

(Photo: Preservation Nation Blog)

In 1970, Chinese poetry carved into the walls of the Angel Island Immigration Station saved it from destruction. After these carvings were found, Bay Area Asian Americans formed the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation (AIISF) and began a long journey that led to the restoration of the station and its opening to the public in 1983. Today, AIISF’s mission is to continue preserving the site and educate the public about the role of the Pacific Rim immigration in U.S. history.

Immigrants arrive on Angel Island

Asian immigration into the U.S. began in the 1850s, when young single men were recruited as laborers. The recruitment was so extensively that, by 1870, the Chinese represented 20% of California’s labor force. But the 1876 depression changed the attitudes towards these workers so strongly that Congress eventually passed the only U.S. law to ever restrict immigration and naturalization on the basis of race. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act would restrict Chinese immigration for the next sixty years.

Thirty years after the Act’s inception, a national system had formed specifically targeting Asian immigration. Immigration officials developed a new facility on Angel Island, the largest island in the San Francisco Bay, isolating immigrants from the mainland. Men were separated from women. People were put through humiliating medical exams and harsh interrogations that required immigrants to remember minute details of their lives, such as how many steps were in front of their home. Until they were approved, immigrants suffered long waits on Angel Island, which could span from weeks, months, to years.

An aerial view of Angel Island

The AIISF hopes to make this part of U.S. history better known and to give voices to the immigrants that faced such conditions. In this effort, it has created a forum where people can read the personal stories and those of friends and family that went through Angel Island. The stories span from immigrants arriving in the early 20^th century, like that of Japanese-born Kaoru Okawa who arrived in 1919 to more recent arrivals like that of Sri-Lankan born Kumar Emayan, who arrived in 1997. What may be the most empowering work the organization has done, though, may be allowing readers to submit their own stories. Visit their website to find out how people can share their own stories.

Asian-Americans and Local Residents Fight for More Affordable Housing in Boston’s Shrinking Chinatown

“Millennium Partners, pay your fees!”

“Jobs for our communities!”

During the Affordable Housing Parade on Sunday, March 30, a rainy day in Boston, Karen Chen, the 35-year-old Organizing Director of The Chinese Progressive Association, led the protest group in chants. A large sign, which read “We Can’t Afford Your Way of Life”, covered her upper body.

Asian-Americans and local residents participate in a rally against the development of luxury housing in Boston’s Chinatown

Over 50 residents from Boston’s Chinatown and Roxbury and Dorchester, Masachusetts, gathered at the Downtown Crossing area to protest against Millennium Partners, a developer corporation now building its fourth luxury tower around Chinatown. They shook bottles as noisemakers, beat on white bucket for drums, and walked in a rally from Macy’s to Boston Common and back.

“Residents in at least ten buildings in Chinatown are facing risks of displacement due to the luxury development,” Chen said.

Protesters braved the cold and the wet to rally against the development of luxury housing in Boston’s Chinatown

“Multi-million dollar developers should not be taking tax breaks to build luxury housing without creating higher wage jobs and meeting the city’s construction hiring and affordable housing goals,” Boston Jobs Coalition, co-organizers of the rally, said in a press release. “It’s time to stop using our tax dollars to line developers’ pockets while hard-working families are pushed out of their communities.”

As reported by the Boston Globe in December, 2013, Millennium Partners received a $5.9 million discount on development fees for the construction of luxury housing in Boston, allowed by the Boston Redevelopment Authority. “First, they received $19 million in historical preservation tax credit, then another $7.8 million on the city tax break,” explained Chen.

Protesters wish to protect the community and to keep affordable housing for current residents and future generations

“I come to Chinatown mostly to go shopping and to eat Chinese food,” Patrick Tai, 68, said in the rally, “but now, quite a few of my favorite Chinese groceries and restaurants are disappearing because the neighborhood’s changing and they can’t afford to continue their business or to pay their rent.”

Since 1990, when the Community Master Plan, which limited the height of buildings around Chinatown, was repealed, the neighborhood has experienced an influx in luxury buildings. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Boston has become the fastest gentrifying city in the country.

The Caucasian population in Boston and Philadelphia’s Chinatowns doubled between 2000 to 2010, although the entire Caucasian population of each city decreased, revealed the report Chinatown: Then and Now. “For many Asian-Americans, Chinatown is an essential part of our heritage and history. But Chinatowns on the East Coast are on the verge of disappearing.” The report was conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and focused on the three biggest Chinatowns on the East Coast, in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

Regarding Philadelphia, the report said, “In 2009, residents defeated a proposal to build a 24-hour gambling casino less than two blocks from the first homes in Chinatown.” In New York, though the gentrification – a shift in an urban community to richer residents and increasing property values – is not as obvious as in Boston and Philadelphia, the city’s developers have converted many former factories into loft units selling for millions of dollars. Though the tenement buildings may retain the same exteriors, the landlords, who circumvent the City’s rent regulation laws, have increased the rent up to $3,000 per month. The steep rent has forced the original residents to move from their communities.

“I’m afraid that Chinatown would get smaller and smaller, and disappear one day. I don’t want that to happen,” Tai said.

All photographs courtesy of the author.

Repealing Affirmative Action in California: Discrimination or Diversity?

If there’s any particular issue of contention among the Asian-American community lately, it’s the issue of the return of affirmative action.

California’s Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 (SCA-5) seeks to remove the provisions of California Proposition 209 and allow state universities to consider race, gender, color, ethnicity, and national origin as factors in the admission process. When the amendment passed in the California Senate on January 30, it reignited this highly controversial topic, particularly among the Asian-American community. This is a highly simplified breakdown of the chief arguments:

• Supporters of the bill, led by its author, State Senator Edward Hernandez, believe that SCA-5 would allow the percentages of Latino, African American, and Native American students in California public universities to grow. He stated that these numbers had significantly declined following implementation of Proposition 209 and that the removal of the relevant provisions would promote diversity within the California public university system.

• Critics of the bill argue that it is a form of discrimination and advocates preferential treatment for certain racial groups. It logically follows that this preference comes at the expense of other groups, perhaps contributing to racial tensions in California. They also argue that Senator Hernandez’s data supporting a post-Proposition 209 decline in diversity was skewed and contradicts public records, which conversely demonstrate an increase in minority populations among the University of California (UC) system.

A colorblind system?

Historically speaking, the Asian-American community has typically been relatively politically passive. On February 28, however, opposition to the bill incensed more than 500 Chinese-Americans to gather in protest before the office building of State Assemblymember Ed Chau in Sacramento, urging him to vote against SCA-5 in the State Assembly. Opponents called the bill “Skin Color Act 5”, citing significantly higher admissions criteria for Asian-Americans than their counterparts.

Asian-Americans protest affirmative action

(Photo: AALDEF)

Asian-Americans constitute less than 5% of the U.S. population, significantly less than the percentages of African Americans and Latinos. Despite their minority status, race-based admissions programs would actually work against the Asian community because of disproportionately high test scores and general scholarship. In California, the population is larger, with 14.9% of the population being of Asian origins. In admissions, however, Asians constitute 36%. The implementation of a “quota”, so to speak, would decrease the current Asian presence in the UCs and other public schools. It’s because of this process that many Asian-Americans feel that they are being unfairly penalized for their high rates of success.

It is a dialogue driven by fear. Many of the protestors are afraid of the impact SCA-5 would have on them and their children’s prospects at entering the highly competitive UCs. Fear easily converts to anger, which resulted in political activism. Currently, the Change.org petition against SCA-5 has gathered more than 100,000 supporters within 3 weeks.

The broader issue here is the issue of “positive discrimination”, or “reverse racism”, as some call it, which, for many, have become synonymous with affirmative action. The current discourse on affirmative actions ranges from dismissive to apoplectic. This is the debate that I plan to address in the near future, though delving into such a controversial topic requires careful diligence.

President Obama Meets with the Dalai Lama at the White House

On Friday, February 21st, President Barack Obama met with the 14th Dalai Lama in the Map Room of the White House, despite fervent protest from Beijing. This was not the first encounter between President Obama and the Dalai Lama, who already met twice: in February 2010 and July 2011. Both times, the Chinese government rebuked President Obama’s involvement in the Tibetan issue, claiming such meetings with the Dalai Lama gravely jeopardized Sino-America relations.

Dalai Lama tossing snow at reporters in D.C., 2010

Outside the People’s Republic of China, the 14th Dalai Lama is acknowledged as the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader. In 1951, after ratifying the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, the Dalai Lama worked briefly with the Chinese government; he was even elected as a delegate in the National People’s Congress and met Mao Zedong in Beijing. After the failure of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, the Dalai Lama fled Potala Palace in Lhasa with his supporters for India, where he established the government of Tibet in exile in Dharamsala.

In recent years, many world leaders – the late Czech President Vaclav Havel, the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofsadt, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – have met with the Dalai Lama, all to angry opposition from Beijing.

Sometimes, the exchange of diplomatic disapprobation resulted in punishment: the Chinese government canceled the EU-China Summit planned in December 2008 in Lyon, France. The reason? Then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s meeting with the Dalai Lama in Poland at the 25th-anniversary commemoration of the Dalai Lama’s Nobel Peace Prize.

The Dalai Lama with Carla Bruni, Sarkozy’s surprise of a third wife

France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had rebuffed the warning of the Chinese government, saying that even “[France] cannot have foreign policies dictated, even by our friends.”

Compared to France’s approach, the White House’s attitude towards the Tibetan issue during the Friday meeting was more cautious and ambivalent. A carefully worded announcement read,

“The United States supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘middle way’ approach of neither assimilation nor independence for Tibetans in China. The United States recognizes Tibet to be a part of the People’s Republic of China and we do not support Tibetan independence. The United States strongly supports human rights and religious freedom in China.”

In response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry described the Dalai Lama as a “separatist” and claimed that the “‘middle way’ approach is deceptive, and in nature is a political guideline for ‘Tibet independence’, which the Chinese government will absolutely not tolerate.” Beijing interpreted President Obama’s encounter with Dalai Lama as a “gross interference” into Chinese internal affairs; pundits saw this as Washington’s reaction against China’s establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea, which escalated the already high tensions with Japan over disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

China is a trading partner with many EU countries, and possess enormous holdings in the American market. With deepening Chinese-U.S. political and economic links, the White House managed – this time – to kept the meeting low-key (the event wasn’t even announced until Thursday) and to sidestep from the central Tibetan question by denouncing Tibetan independence. But every action demands a reaction – the issue, at this point, is still outstanding.

Category, People: He Hacked “Jeopardy”

Who is Arthur Chu?

A 30-year-old compliance analyst and voice-over performer from Cleveland, Ohio, Chu’s four-day winning streak on Jeopardy (total: $102,800) has brought trivia fans and game theorists into the same room – but, like a junior high school dance, at opposite sides.

He returns today for his 5th appearance.

Chu’s tactics on the show includes a hovering thumb over the buzzer (pressing before Alex Trebek completed the sentence) and the “Forrest bounce”, first executed by Chuck Forrest on Jeopardy in 1985, which forgoes the established method of following through with one category from top-to-bottom and instead hunts around the board to find and clear Daily Doubles. (Chu wagered the minimum of $5 in categories he did not know.)

The Jeopardy “game board”

The carpal-tunnel buzzer-blitz is to prevent the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire chit-chat drag: to get through as many questions, and as much monetary winnings, as possible. The “Forrest bounce”, as noted in a Slate article by Ken Jennings (the Jeopardy champion only defeated on his 75th appearance), has been used a few times between Chuck Forrest and Arthur Chu: by David Madden (2005), Roger Craig (2010-2011), and IBM supercomputer Watson (2011).

And, even more so than how Chu is smashing what the viewers expect of the game itself in his “unsportsmanlike” behavior, he’s also targeted for his rumpled, nerdy looks. The Jeopardy “villain” is easily targeted for the lowest common denominator of racial epithets: his haircut, his “chinky” eyes, his size, his clothes, his masculinity. What, nothing about his celebratory dinner of dog meat?

(Compiled by Angry Asian Man)

Chu has been giving as good as he’s gotten on Twitter.

He’s also refreshingly self-aware in interviews:

“The unspoken rule is that if you’re on Jeopardy, you should be in a suit and tie, you should be genteel, and here I am, I’m poorly dressed, I have a bad haircut, I’m intense,” he says. “Well, the fact is it’s ludicrous: I’m an out of shape, nerdy Asian guy who’s become a ‘sports legend’ because I’m good at a trivia game. What do I have to apologize for? This is the only time in my life I’m going to get to do something like this. Of course I’m going to milk it! If I don’t, it’s back to a life of office jobs and being a nerdy Asian guy.”

Here’s a question: Why go on game shows, if not to win?

Damn if you do, and damn if you don’t. But I know which one I’d rather choose.

Style Directives: What Are You Wearing?

When my mom and her friends visited China, they filled every possible space of their suitcases with Nike tennis shoes, Ralph Lauren polo shirts, and Coach bags. These American brand-name goods were doled out to their younger relatives and cousins, who valued the clothes not for fashion or quality but for the big logos splashed across the fabric. Even though this generation of Chinese teens are slowly discovering their own style, they won’t refuse this sartorial link to the West.

Yet, there remain differences in the way that Chinese and American teenagers dress, although their style directive often comes from the same type of sources: television, film, magazines. In the end, though, it’s culture that leads to different ideas about what and what not to wear.

I noticed how teenage girls present themselves. In the U.S., girls try out makeup, pull their shirts down and hike their skirts up – the goal is to look older. In China, where innocence and childish cuteness is widely prized, girls wear clothing with bows, ruffles, or characters like Hello Kitty in order to appear younger. Even though the Chinese like to borrow from Western fashion, they systematically reject the perceived openness of Western sexual attitudes. Do the girls want the Ralph Lauren sweater with a large polo player embroidered across the chest? Oh, yes. Do they want the mini-sundress with the low-cut back? Absolutely not.

A few examples of the extreme – Japanese “kawaii” (cute) style

Another observation I had was the extent of celebrity worship and idol culture in China compared to the U.S. From my experience in the States, when celebrities, athletes, actors, or musicians release a clothing line or a new fragrance, a very small fraction of the most passionately devoted fans would anticipate and purchase the new items. (Except for H&M and Target designer collaborations – that’s a different story altogether!) For the vast majority, the difference between a pair of jeans designed by Justin Timberlake (from his co-founded William Rast line) and a pair of Levis is probably insignificant.

Britney and Timberlake – because these pictures are still hilarious

My Chinese cousins see it differently. When my family was planning to make a trip back, one of my college-aged cousins specifically requested that we bring back Michael Jordan t-shirts, with the logo or his name stated explicitly on the shirt, and with the silhouette of the basketball player leaping into the air, ready to dunk. As well, the sneakers had to be Air Jordans: not Puma, Reebok, or Adidas, but Nike Air Jordans. My cousin and his friends were fascinated by Jordan’s celebrity status, and wanted to wear his special line to express their idolatry to everyone.

Last, but probably the biggest difference, is the attitude towards counterfeit products. For most Americans, the thought of buying a fake Louis Vuitton handbag is upsetting. Although there are many websites and private sellers offering “silk” scarves, inspired-by-Hermès leather purses, or out-and-out duplicates of the latest goods still on store shelves, people tend not to buy them. However, it’s common to encounter Chinese street vendors offering “genuine” name-brand bags for just a fraction of the cost – perhaps a few hundred yuan instead of hundred of thousands – and just as common to see Chinese youths engaged in transactions.

For the younger generation, it’s not quality they seek, but the images of the luxurious lifestyle evoked by the brands. For them, fashion is a way to express what they want to be to their peers and colleagues, instead of an indication of who they actually are.

“Oh, you know, just hanging with my director dad in an Argentinean field at dusk…“

Of course, many of these trends have shifted in recent years. Celebrities and political figures like Peng Liyun, China’s First Lady, have shown up to prominent events wearing Chinese designers; the rise of tuhao will change purchasing trends. While the change is slow, and perhaps uncertain, it’s one that may bring Chinese designers to the world stage, and may mean emptier suitcases when we travel to China.

What It’s Like To Be The Only Asian-American Woman in the U.S. Senate

Senator Mazie Hirono has “first” all over her resume. A Democrat representing Hawaii, she is the first Asian-American woman elected to the United States Senate, the first female senator to represent her state, and the first Buddhist in the Senate. She’s also the first U.S. senator to have been born in Japan.

Hirono immigrated to Hawaii as a little girl because her mother was seeking stability for Mazie and her brother. The children’s father was an alcoholic and a compulsive gambler. They fled him and their homeland on the steerage deck of a cross-Pacific ship. Hirono remembers crying as Yokohama Harbor receded in the distance. She was eight and spoke only Japanese.

Life in Hawaii was a struggle at first. The family slept sideways in a shared bed in the single-room boarding house they rented. Hirono helped support her mother and brother with the money she earned as a cashier in the school lunchroom and with her earnings from an after-school newspaper route.

Eventually, she paid her way through college at the University of Hawaii and law school at Georgetown University. Hirono went on to become a state representative, Hawaii’s lieutenant governor, and a congresswoman. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012.

I caught up with her about what it’s like to be a woman in the U.S. Senate, where inequality still persists, and what it took to get her where she is today. Here’s our conversation, lightly edited and condensed:

What’s your first memory from when you were a little girl of what you wanted to be when you grew up?

At a pretty young age, I wanted to do something with my life that would help people. I’ve been that way for quite a while. I wanted to be a counselor or social worker. That’s one of the reasons I was a psychology major.

How did watching your mother go through what she did affect the way you thought about women and what it takes for a woman to be in control of her own life?

I always saw my mother just making decisions that helped our family. It was much later when I realized how courageous she really was, and I came to understand what a risk-taker she was. That’s very much a part of how I am. I never took a path that was the usual path for someone in my generation. A lot of the women who I went to school with, in those days, it was still the track of becoming a teacher, becoming a nurse. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I didn’t go down that path. I did things that were different than what my classmates were doing. I think that’s really from my mom.

Who else inspired you to do something other than what society expected?

No matter how independent you are, you’re still part of a larger community with sexual stereotyping and everything else that really goes on. The book that really opened my eyes — here I am in college, and that’s when I read Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. Even if I had such an unusual mother, so independent, I still — there was a part of me thinking, ‘Well, I’m gonna get married and I’m gonna have kids.’

And then I read that book, and literally a lightbulb went on in my head: ‘Why am I thinking this? I’ve never had a male presence in my life, really, so why do I think some guy is going to come along and I’m going to have this traditional life?’ It was at that point I think that I really began to look at my life as something that was probably going to take a different path, and it did.

Hirono and husband Leighton Oshima at the White House Bowling Alley, 2012

There were fewer women in law school during your time at Georgetown. What was that experience like?

Oh, yes. There were maybe 20 percent or fewer. I don’t know that I saw that much of a distinction by the time I was in law school. Definitely, there weren’t 50 percent [women], but at that point, at Georgetown, you’re competing with everyone else. It was a very competitive environment. I wanted to do public interest law. And the reason I selected Georgetown is they had really strong clinical programs, and I was in one of these clinical programs that involved being an advocate.

Fast-forward to being in Congress. Obviously we get more women with each election, which is great.

Yes. It’s really great.

But I’m still curious about some of the nuances — even if it’s something as seemingly small as the women’s bathroom being farther away from the floor.

You should see how it was on the House side. It’s much closer on the Senate side.

What are some of the other things you notice that are different for a woman than for a man, things that people who aren’t in Congress might not be privy to?

I’m pausing because every senator makes a huge difference. Regardless of whether you’re male, female, Republican, or Democrat, every Senate vote counts. From that standpoint, it’s not necessarily something that is a gender issue.

Right. So where it matters most, you’re truly equal.

But clearly, though, with the press, they seem to be really interested in the women of the Senate and when we don’t seem to agree on a path. I’m specifically talking about sexual assault in the military. [New York Democratic Sen.] Kirsten Gillibrand and I — and others — have supported a pretty significant change to the Code of Military Justice. [Missouri Democratic Sen.] Claire McCaskill has a different path. But we all agree that sexual assault in the military should be prevented and there should be prosecutions when these crimes occur. But there’s been a lot of press about why it is that we’re not together. I don’t think that’s an issue very much when men disagree.

It’s a very specific example of how the press still looks at our presence in this environment.

Years ago I found a 1950s article at the Library of Congress about [former congresswoman and Title IX author] Patsy Mink. The lede was something like, ‘the cutest politician you ever saw.’ So, on one hand, you think how far we’ve come, but then you still see coverage that references women leaders’ haircuts and outfits.

Or how petite we are. That sort of thing. You notice that a lot more still with women.

Hillary Clinton and Mazie Hirono

You’re a woman in a legislative body full of men, and you’re also the first Asian-American woman in the Senate. Are you treated differently for one more than for the other?

My being the only [Asian-American] woman here and only the second minority woman ever to be elected to the Senate, I think that says we have a ways to go. When I go home, I talk with the kids in Hawaii and I say, ‘Do you know there’s only one person in the Senate who looks like us?’

They must be shocked. [Ed. note: Asians make up 38 percent of the Hawaii population ; 23 percent of the population identifies as two or more races.]

Yeah, when I put it that way. Because they look around and they see the cosmopolitan backgrounds that everybody has. And I say, ‘I am the only person who looks like us.’ And they invariably look at each other. And I say, ‘That’s why we need to do a lot more.’

So what advice do you give to young people — particularly young women — who aspire to public service or elected office?

We need to get everybody in the pipeline in the local races. The local political arena is where it started for me, and I think that is still the case, especially for women. We need to get a lot more women into the pipeline… in the political arena as well as in the private sector.

You see the Fortune 500 companies, you see the boards. [Ed. note: Less than 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs .] They have to pay attention, otherwise they are not going to get the kind of diversity that’s representative of our country.

How do you think women can better support each other? For instance, I’m not aspiring to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but I still want to see more women in those roles. What can I do?

Well, awareness helps. And to feel that they make a difference.

Women in Hawaii, they need to vote. I definitely think that we can improve the voting rates of women in Hawaii. So, education and awareness.

I think it’s important for women to realize that their daughters, particularly, can aspire to a lot of different things — like robotics. The kids in Hawaii really like it and I’ve talked to kids from elementary school on up.

Especially the elementary and middle-school kids, I ask them, ‘If it weren’t for robotics, would you think about going into engineering?’ And they say no! So a lot of times, kids learn by doing. And then they realize, ‘Oh, I can do this.’ So those kinds of opportunities are really important, particularly for the girls.

This interview was originally published on Medium and is produced as part of The Only Woman in the Room collection by LadyBits .

Why Do We Blame Asian International Students?

Earlier in January, my university’s newspaper ran an opinion piece titled “Internationalization effort should be scaled back”. It was a simple article, one that most people from the school probably found themselves agreeing with. Yes, my university’s administration is often criticized for its active recruitment of international students; yes, it’s true that 14% of our student body are international students, and around half are from China; yes, most of the students are from Asian countries, and yes, there’s only a handful from Europe or Africa.

These are the facts; it’s the interpretation that I find problematic. Globalization is a good thing: we can learn from different cultures and backgrounds. The concern isn’t that my university should stop trying to recruit students from all over the world – it’s that they’re finding them from all the “wrong” places.

Problem #1: Why are there so many Asian students coming to the U.S.?

The U.S. has some of the world’s best universities for undergraduates, graduates, and professionals. In the past, people came to America in search of gold, or trade, or land; now, they come in search of education.

The selective mindset of wanting to pick and choose which countries can send their students to the U.S. recalls the reaction to the 20th-century immigrant waves chasing the “American Dream”: Americans didn’t want the Eastern Europeans or the Irish, but “proper” Western Europeans.

Let’s stay away from this

The same principle applies here: while much of Europe has settled into developed societies and economies, countries like China and India are still developing and changing. It’s natural that Asian students would want to come to the U.S., learn about subjects like economics and biology, conduct research, and network with employers and companies. It’s natural for them to want to better themselves and their countries through education, similar to how upper class elites in Western societies sent their sons away to Oxford and Cambridge or the Grand Tour and their daughters to “finishing school”.

We live in a globalized society; why not make use of it?

Problem #2: Why aren’t there enough international students from the “right” countries?

I’m going to assume the “right” countries mean Western Europe, Australia, Russia – basically, the countries where American students themselves study abroad.

When countries have more higher education and employment options, students tend to stay home. This is the case for countries like South Korea, Japan, and Turkey, all of which send fewer students over. This question relates to #1: a country’s opportunities for its youth – based on history and economy, as well as other factors – creates or limits the channels for its students to study abroad.

Unlike American students, most international students like those from China stay in the United States for at least four years, either completing a degree or conducting research. In all exchange programs, studying abroad involves leaving behind a familiar culture and adjusting or assimilating quickly; for international students in the U.S., this difficulty is compounded because they also invest a large chunk of their life, not just a semester or a summer.

Problem #3: No, really, why are there so many Asian students at my university?

Sharks vs. Jets

Perhaps what underlies this question is discomfort. The U.S. has been through many dramatic social changes lately – the legalization of gay marriage in some states, marijuana in others, immigration, etc. One of the arguments many people use to argue against gay marriage is that it’s against the norms of expectation: how are they suppose to explain to their children why two men are getting married? It’s just so… different. Icky.

The same kind of mindset surrounds the debate around international students. Americans who grew up with Western traditions – either they themselves are “mutts” of European extraction, or simply for the fact that they live in the U.S. and participate in the culture – go to college and are met by the unfamiliar presence of Asians on campus. They may feel uncomfortable talking to them, having to struggle to understand their words around their accents or encountering different values and perceptions.

When it’s time to socialize, everything breaks down into groups: domestic students eat with each other at meals, and international students have their own tables, speaking in their own languages and not having their expectations challenged. When I’m at lunch, it’s astonishing to me how people naturally divide themselves: it seems as though the groups don’t want to interact at all, and therefore, don’t.

Problem #4: Is there actually a problem?


No. While we’re at university, it’s best to look at what we can learn from the international students instead of trying to pick at nearly nonexistent problems. One of my friends from China regularly shares her tea with me; others make plans to go out for dinner every month. Regardless of how they got here, they are here and are part of our community. As fellow students, we should accept them for what they contribute, not shun them for what we imagine they take away.

You are What You Eat: Of Steamed Buns, Pizza, and Politicians

Food seems to be a popular political tool for politicians across the globe. Of course, the type of food is the crucial factor here: if one wants to convey that he stands with the people, as politicians are oft to do, he will choose a common food. When ordinary people see the public figure eating ordinary food, it makes the figure more relatable and representative. Apparently, this applies to Chinese politics as much as Western politics.

While New York Mayor Bill de Blasio undergoes scrutiny for his selection of utensils, the Chinese media and online forums exploded with admiration and praise for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to a Beijing restaurant last month. During this surprise visit, Mr. Xi reportedly stood in line and paid for his own buns, reiterating his political platform as a “leader of the people”. In the Qingfeng Steamed Dumpling Shop, Mr. Xi ordered pork and onion buns, green vegetables, and pig intestines for roughly $3.40. Criticisms for the visit arose as well, though they were overwhelmed by the tide of positive response to this rare demonstration of populism.

President Xi enjoying an everyman’s lunch

While American politicians commonly frequent popular local establishments in campaign events, this type of PR strategy is few and far between in China. With a long history of institutionalized separation between the masses and those in power, modern Chinese perceptions of their inaccessible political leaders often fringe on the superhuman. For locals, President Xi’s visit instantly canonized his order, with the dishes and the Beijing eatery becoming popular subjects for tourism.

Last week, Mayor Bill de Blasio had markedly different reactions from his recent restaurant visit. The new mayor of New York City was seen eating pizza at the popular Staten Island eatery, Goodfella’s Pizza. Instead of starting a new pizza craze, the mayor’s lunch visit sparked an online and media controversy.

Common criticisms cite Mayor de Blasio’s use of a fork to eat his pizza as unrepresentative of the New York style. After the visit, Mayor de Blasio’s food selections aren’t the focus of the subsequent tourism – his cutlery is. The restaurant owner proceeded to put the fork on display, with plans to auction off the utensil at a charity fundraiser.

Jon Stewart is on top of “Forkgate” with Mayor de Blasio

(Photo: Comedy Central)

It could be said that Mayor de Blasio’s gaffe derives in his “wrong” eating technique, one that was distinctively un-New York and not reflective of “the people,” while Mr. Xi adhered to common eating practices. Yet, a review of photos from the event revealed that Mr. Xi used chopsticks instead of his hands, which is the more common practice for Chinese people. Granted, politeness is a valid excuse for preferring one method to another, yet Mr. Xi encountered no criticisms of any kind over his choice of utensils.

For Mr. Xi, his lunch of steamed buns elevated the dish and the restaurant to a “presidential” level, while Mayor de Blasio was condemned for failing to adhere to the “ordinary” level. The differences in the reactions to Mr. Xi and Mayor de Blasio’s restaurant outings demonstrate fundamental differences in the sociopolitical conditions between China and the United States. Perhaps this shift in popular appeal marks a parallel shift in Chinese political norms. Mr. Xi’s bid to represent the Chinese people, or laobaixing, could be the beginning of a China that puts more weight on the opinions of her citizens, though this remains to be seen.

Main image by Tutou Jueren via China Digital Times