As the Asian American population continues to grow, many are increasingly entering fields other than medicine, computers, and engineering. One of these emerging fields for Asian American professionals is law. But how welcoming are the top law firms toward the growing number of Asian American lawyers? To help answer that question, as the New York Times reports, a new study by the grassroots organization “Building a Better Legal Profession” has graded the nation’s largest law firms on how culturally diverse they are:

The students are handing out “diversity report cards” to the big law firms, ranking them by how many female, minority and gay lawyers they have. . . . The numbers were provided to a central clearinghouse by the firms themselves. “Our process is simple,” the student group said in explaining its methodology. “Cut, paste and rank.”

Firms in the top fifth received A’s, in the second fifth B’s, and so on. Overall grades were arrived at by averaging grades for partners and associates in five categories: women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and gay people. . . .

I [NY Times reporter] asked the firms with particularly poor rankings for comments, and most of them responded, generally with quite similar statements. The issues are serious and difficult ones, they said, but they are working hard to make progress. . . .

The report cards seem to be having an impact. Mr. Bruck said a second-year student at Stanford had recently turned down an offer from one firm “as soon as he saw that it got an F on our diversity report card.”

The study has data on the level of representation of women, Blacks, Latinos, and openly gay/lesbian associates and partners, but since my expertise is on Asian Americans, I found their data on them most interesting. These numbers show that, nationally, the law firms that scored the best for Asian Americans are located in northern California’s Bay Area. This makes sense because Asian Americans generally represent about 15% of all residents of that area.

But it might also reflect the idea that being located in such a “liberal” and technology-heavy area, these firms understand that it is in their best interests to have lots of Asian American attorneys because these lawyers are not only intelligent, well-qualified, and hard-working, but as American society becomes increasingly globalized, these Asian Americans have the unique opportunity to leverage their cross-national ties, networks, and knowledge to lead their firms into the 21st century.

In the process, these Asian American attorneys are gradually expanding the definition of what it means to be an “American” to make it more diverse, especially in the context of our ever-evolving society and world.

Congratulations to those firms that scored well and I hope they keep up the good work.

Many opponents of immigration (legal or illegal) like to argue that immigrants are less likely to think of themselves as American, are not interested in assimilating into American culture, and would rather go back to their birth country than stay in the U.S. However, a new study on Latino immigrants by the respected non-partisan Pew Research Center suggests a different picture -- most Latino immigrants want to be as American as anybody else:

Only one-in-ten (9%) of all Latino immigrants send remittances, make phone calls at least once a week and have traveled back to their country of origin in the past two years. Meanwhile, nearly three-in-ten (28%) do not engage in any of these activities. . . .

The share making trips in the recent past is higher among immigrants with long tenure than among the recent arrivals. Acquiring U.S. citizenship, which is more common among those with more years of residence, is associated with higher levels of recent travel. . . .

Two-thirds of Latino immigrants (66%) say they plan to stay in the U.S. for good, but this intention varies significantly depending on how long an individual has been in this country. Among those here for fewer than 10 years, 51% say they plan to stay, a view shared by 85% of those who have already been here more than 30 years.

To summarize, while many might expect virtually all Latino immigrants to have deep levels of attachment to their birth countries, a significant number of them (28%) do not engage in any of the three identified “attachment” behaviors at all. Also, the longer a Latino immigrant lives in the U.S. or if s/he has U.S. citizenship, the more likely s/he is to travel back and forth between the U.S. and his/her birth country, again contrary to conventional expectations. And even among recent immigrants, more than half plan to stay permanently in the U.S.

The take-home message from this study seems to be: in contrast to criticisms that they aren’t interested in assimilating, overwhelmingly, Latino immigrants (legal and illegal) want to become Americans.

With that in mind, their critics can still argue over whether they -- particularly those who are here illegally -- should be allowed to become American citizens, but their argument that Latino immigrants themselves don’t want to become Americans now appears to be significantly weakened.

As the presidential primary season heats up, so too does the scrutiny given to every facet of each candidate’s campaign. When it comes to the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, we’ve already heard about the episode with Norman Hsu, the fugitive felon who gave to Clinton and other Democratic politicians. Now, as the Los Angeles Times reports, there may be some irregularities with some campaign contributions that Clinton has received from residents of New York City’s Chinatown:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. . . .

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton’s success in gathering money from Chinatown’s least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins. . . .

As with other campaigns looking for dollars in unpromising places, the Clinton operation also has accepted what it later conceded were improper donations. At least one reported donor denies making a contribution. Another admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money. Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions. . . .

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

The article goes on to describe that many Chinatown residents who donate to Clinton’s campaign hope that if she becomes President that she will make it easier to reunite with family members back in China, and how this hope may be a little optimistic given current political realities.

Many in the Asian American community have raised objections to the overall tone of this particular article, arguing that it paints a rather biased and prejudicial picture of Chinese American (and by implication, Asian American) campaign donors. In particular, U.S. Representative Mike Honda (current Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus) notes:

I am appalled by the irresponsible and biased portrayal of the Asian American immigrant community, published by the L.A. Times today. The reporting unfairly attributes selected individual cases to an entire ethnic community in a major metropolitan area. Such an unfair, sweeping, and negative portrayal has a significant chilling effect on the civic participation by all Asian Americans, who merely want their fair chance to participate in the American political process. . . .

Drawing a connection between the emerging political involvement of Asian Americans and individual cases of possibly suspect donations sends a strong message that the political participation of minority communities is undesired. Minority communities in America have been shut out of the political process through poll taxes, literacy tests, and other tactics throughout our country’s history. As leaders, we should be encouraging, not chilling, the legitimate involvement of underrepresented communities in our democracy.

On those points, I wholeheartedly agree with Rep. Honda -- too many times, Asian Americans are questioned on their identities and loyalties as “real” Americans. Whether it relates to accusations of spying for China or charges of improper donations to politicians, it is rather exasperating for many Asian Americans when they are automatically presumed to be “guilty by association” and have to prove themselves innocent from a cultural point of view.

In my Asian American Studies class that I’m teaching this semester, we are currently discussing the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during World War II as the tragic result of hysterical prejudices and mistaken presumptions of “national loyalty.” I hope most can see that these same fears are also present in this case. In fact, it does seem to me that the writers of the LA Times article did go out of their way to paint a picture of Chinatown campaign donors as “suspect” and “dishonest” -- the very definition of Orientalism.

At the same time, as I wrote posted earlier about Norman Hsu, members of the Asian American community are not doing their group any favors if they disobey the laws and improperly donate money to candidates. Doing so causes infinitely more damage to our community than it benefits. Such improper contributions damage our collective credibility and only fan the racial biases against us.

If any of the contributions described in this article are in fact improper, I hope those responsible are held accountable and that the residents of this Chinatown community and elsewhere are taught what is legal and what is illegal when it comes to donating money to politicians.

At the same time, if there were any improper donations, I hope that everybody remembers that the actions of a few should not reflect upon an entire group of people. In the same way that I do not hold all Whites or all Republicans responsible for the corrupt and illegal activities of crooked political participants such as Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Conrad Burns, Mark Foley, etc., so too should we keep in mind that a few donations from ineligible Asian Americans does not mean all donations from Asian Americans are suspect.

Even if some Chinatown residents were ineligible to donate, the fact that many willingly gave up a significant portion of their income shows that they are not afraid to put their money where their mouth is -- to turn their convictions into action, rather than sit around, complain, and not do anything about the situation.

In the end, that’s one lesson that they can teach all Americans.

Back in 1996, Chinese American Democrat Gary Locke became the first Asian American governor of Washington state and therefore, the first governor of a mainland state in American history. Now we have a second -- as the Associated Press reports, Republican and Indian American Bobby Jindal has just been elected as Governor of Louisiana:

Jindal, a 36-year-old Republican, will be the nation’s youngest governor. He had 53 percent with 625,036 votes with about 92 percent of the vote tallied. . . . The Oxford-educated Jindal had lost the governor’s race four years ago to Gov. Kathleen Blanco. He won a congressional seat in conservative suburban New Orleans a year later but was widely believed to have his eye on the governor’s mansion.

Blanco opted not to run for re-election after she was widely blamed for the state’s slow response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. . . . Jindal, who takes office in January, pledged to fight corruption and rid the state of those “feeding at the public trough,” revisiting a campaign theme.

“They can either go quietly or they can go loudly, but either way, they will go,” he said, adding that he would call the Legislature into special session to address ethics reform. Political analysts said Jindal built up support as a sort of “buyer’s remorse” from people who voted for Blanco last time and had second thoughts about that decision. . . .

In India, Jindal’s family members were proud, and were going to celebrate with the traditional Punjabi folk dance called bhangra.

The New York Times reports in a separate article that not all Indian Americans are head over heels over his victory. The article quotes my friend and colleague Prof. Vijay Prashad as saying, “The fact that he’s of Indian ancestry is a subject of jubilation. But there’s a very shallow appreciation of who he really is. Once you scratch the surface, it’s really unpleasant.”

As a liberal, I too feel some uneasiness about the victory of any conservative Republican, Asian American or not. Nonetheless, I still offer my congratulations to Bobby Jindal on his historic victory. We may have opposing political ideologies but as my post about how Vietnamese Americans frequently cross party lines to support Vietnamese candidates to strengthen ethnic solidarity, so too am I proud that another Asian American has achieved such a powerful position in the American political landscape.

Perhaps Asian Americans are slowly succeeding in demonstrating that we are in fact “real” and “legitimate” Americans just like anybody else.

It’s been a well-known fact, and an occasional topic here in this blog, that college faculty tend to identify as liberals much more often than as conservatives, especially in the humanities and social sciences where, in some disciplines, the Democrat-to-Republican ratio can be as high as 30 to 1. But as Inside Higher Education reports, a new Harvard study suggests that these ideological disparities might be overstated and that newer faculty are becoming less liberal:

The 72-page study -- “The Social and Political Views of American Professors” — was produced with the goal of moving analysis of the political views of faculty members out of the culture wars and back to social science. . . .

The authors present evidence that there are more faculty members who identify as moderates than as liberals. The authors of the study also found evidence of a significant decline by age group in faculty radicalism, with younger faculty members less likely than their older counterparts to identify as radical or activist. And while the study found that faculty members generally hold what are thought to be liberal positions on social issues, professors are divided on affirmative action in college admissions. . . .

The article goes on to describe the study’s summary that in general, college faculty strongly support abortion rights and gay rights, but split about affirmative action and generally agreeing that the relative lack of women in math and sciences is not due to outright discrimination.

Ultimately, this is one of those studies that will probably be used by both sides to support their own arguments in the ongoing debate over whether the overrepresentation of liberals among college faculty constitutes a problem. Those who answer yes will point to the continuing disparities over faculty political orientation and say there needs to be more balance.

On the other hand, those who do not think this is a problem would say that faculty are becoming more moderate and that in many ways, their liberal orientations do not necessarily translate into extremist viewpoints or inappropriate indoctrination of students.

In other words, this study is a very valuable and useful resource to inform these kinds of debates but inevitably, the debate itself will continue to rage on.

For many Americans and for better or for worse, a person’s overall mental health is tied directly to his/her job. With that in mind, as the Associated Press/Salon.com report, a new study lists the jobs in which workers report the highest rates of depression:

People who tend to the elderly, change diapers and serve up food and drinks have the highest rates of depression among U.S. workers. Overall, 7 percent of full-time workers battled depression in the past year, according to a government report available Saturday. Women were more likely than men to have had a major bout of depression, and younger workers had higher rates of depression than their older colleagues. . . .

Almost 11 percent of personal care workers — which includes child care and helping the elderly and severely disabled with their daily needs — reported depression lasting two weeks or longer. . . .

Workers who prepare and serve food — cooks, bartenders, waiters and waitresses — had the second highest rate of depression among full-time employees at 10.3 percent. In a tie for third were health care workers and social workers at 9.6 percent. The lowest rate of depression, 4.3 percent, occurred in the job category that covers engineers, architects and surveyors.

As sociologists can tell you, it should come as no surprise that the “most depressing” jobs tend to be low-paying, low-skill, low-benefits, low autonomy manual labor service jobs. But here’s the most depressing fact here -- it’s these kinds of low-wage jobs that are some of the fastest-growing occupations in the country.

These kinds of workers will probably need more psychiatrists/therapists as well, no?

Several racially-charged incidents have made the news recently. Perhaps the two that have received the most media attention has been the case of the Jena Six and what happened earlier this week at Columbia University’s Teacher’s College. As MSNBC News reports, both of these incidents, along a few others, all involve the use of a hangman’s noose as an image of threatened physical violence and seeks to reassert the notion of White supremacy:

The noose — like the burning cross — is a generations-old means of instilling racial fear. But some experts suspect the Jena furor reintroduced some bigots to the rope. They say the recent incidents might also reflect white resentment over the protests in Louisiana. . . .

In July, a noose was left in the bag of a black Coast Guard cadet aboard a cutter. A noose was found in August on the office floor of a white officer who had been conducting race-relations training in response to the incident. In early September, a noose was discovered at the University of Maryland in a tree near a building that houses several black campus groups.

On Sept. 29, a noose appeared in the locker room of the Hempstead, N.Y., police department, which recently touted its efforts to recruit minorities. On Oct. 2, a noose was seen hanging on a utility pole at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama.

As sociologists will tell you, certain objects or images have very powerful emotions and historical legacies associated with them. For example, before the 20th century, the swastika was generally used as a religious symbol in many cultures. But we all know what that particular symbol is now associated with.

Similarly, the noose has come to be associated not just with the process of executing someone by hanging, but more specifically, with the brutal lynching of African Americans, particularly in the South after the Civil War, during the era of Jim Crow segregation.

But also like in the past, its use is likely to have an effect contradictory to the expectations of those who perpetrated such racist acts -- that is, instead of frightening and silencing the intended targets, they have instead united around this collective threat and has actually resulted in even more solidarity and determination than ever on the part of those targeted.

History repeats itself again, in so many ways.

Here’s a cartoon that pretty much sums up my opinion on President Bush’s recent veto of an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for uninsured children (copied from http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/).