Re-Entry

It's summer. I'm extremely bored. Perhaps I'll make a return to the blogosphere.

My head is a bit of a mess right now though and it's difficult for me to string something together that's coherent. It has been quite some time since I've really written and I'm not quite sure I'm any good at it anymore (it was already pretty shitty to begin with).

I've been thinking a lot about growth lately. This has been primarily motived by two considerations: 1) the normal passing of time and the inevitable compulsion to measure where I am at against where I have been, and 2) the increasing desire to return "home" and the correlative difficulty to return to the idea of home that I remember.

I suppose it's natural to look back and reflect anytime there's some small moment of closure. Each transition, each major event, there's always a consideration about how our experiences change us, for better or for worse. Obviously, a big question for me is how I've changed over the course of law school. It's definitely shaped a lot of the way I look at the world now. In fact, there is a marked difference between who I am now and who I was before starting my studies. The difference is magnified even further when I think back upon my days at UCI. I'm not sure I'm willing to say one is better than the other, they're just different. On the one hand, I think grad school and being this wrapped up with studies has put me a bit more in touch with what goes on in the world outside of my little bubble. On the other hand, I also feel myself drifting towards that ivory tower known as academia. Basically, even though I am more engaged with the world, I am engaged more as a matter of interest and curiosity than pragmatism or activism. In all fairness, this might not be school so much as it is me slowly drifting towards my pre-existing misanthropic tendencies.

Interestingly, I'm finding myself with a growing necessity to spend time around other people. Not necessarily socializing, but I like being surrounded by people which is creating an ever-pressing (over)-reliance on the small networks of close friends. This bridges nicely to the concept of home I described above.

Similar to that feeling of wanting to be around others, I find myself more now than ever in search of a place that feels comfortable to me. Home is a somewhat amorphous term. There's Pleasanton, that's where family is. There's Irvine, that's where my friends are and where a lot of who I am today was shaped. And there's Los Angeles, where I think I've finally honed in on where I'm going and become somewhat more comfortable with where that is. I'm deeply connected to all of these places, and yet there seems to be something missing from all of them. As to Pleasanton and Irvine at least, I think I've learned a certain set of expectations and truths about these areas that just aren't true anymore. I don't know if it's the places that have changed or if maybe it's just me.

I've always had great difficulty dealing with changes. And I think it's just recently that I've finally had the trust and confidence to accept it. But I still can't help but lament for pieces of the past. Perhaps this summer I can start to figure out why.

Revisiting Brown

For my Civil Rights class, it is a fairly common practice for us to revisit old opinions that have played major roles in the civil rights movement. We are asked to look at the opinions with a discerning eye not only to critique harmful outcomes, but to also challenge the methodology used to reach these outcomes.

Recently, my row was asked to address the landmark 1954 decision of Brown v. Board. As many of you know, this is the seminal case that repudiated the Plessy v. Ferguson separate but equal doctrine in the context of primary education. The story less told is that of the actual impact of the decision. For nearly ten years after the decision, almost no progress was made in desegregating the schools. Many states actively refused to obey the orders and employed a variety of tactics to avoid integration.

Also, in many ways, Brown laid the groundwork for the contemporary juridical approach to race matters: colorblindness. This theory essentially looks at race in terms of formal categories and finds that racial classification is per se unconstitutional rather than focusing on the actual harm or group that is seeking protection as is alluded to in Carolene Products footnote 5 (basically where the Court draws on its equal protection scrutinizing power from). It is not uncommon now to see the Court disallow any explicit consideration of race, affirmative action being a prevalent area that comes to mind. Additionally, this form of analysis implicitly pushes back against the idea that there can be discrimination even where race is not explicitly used.

I thought I would share the short paper I had to write up for my analysis on the Brown opinion. There's a lot packed into it, and I'd be happy to explore any area in more depth, so leave a comment if you would like.

---

The case of Brown v. Board of Education[1] is a case which is essentially responding to the separate but equal doctrine announced in Plessy v. Ferguson.[2] Thus, in resolving the question presented before this court today, it is both necessary and helpful to think about the approach used in the Plessy opinion. The Court in its opinion placed great weight in the idea that formal legal equality in society is all that is required by the Constitution. In the Plessy opinion, it is said that the law cannot create social equality[3] and that if blacks are stigmatized by the formal separation of the races, it is a product of their own views.[4] Our opinion today strives to repudiate these positions and emphasize that (1) formal sameness is not the same as equal protection, and (2) that the line drawn between the social and legal realm in Plessy is an artificial dichotomy.

In the Kansas lower court opinions that led to the Brown decision, it was found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon black children, but relief was denied on the ground that the schools were substantially equal in a physical sense. Clearly, this is an iteration of the logic used in Plessy: the Court is not concerned with the potential detrimental social impact of segregation; the Court is only concerned with the guarantee of formal sameness in legal rights. Similarly, while the Delaware Supreme Court did order for integration, the decision was not based on the chancellor’s finding that segregation itself results in an inferior education for black children. And in fact, the Supreme Court of Delaware implied that once the schools were equalized, there could be a modification of the decree. With the rationale of Plessy clearly in the purview of the Brown cases, it is imperative that Brown respond to the logic and reasoning of the Plessy opinion.

When the Supreme Court took up the issue, one of the most important issues examined was the stigmatization of black children as a result of segregation. But rather than taking an approach that analyzes the historical and contextual facts of racial segregation in the United States, the Brown Court frames the issue as one merely concerned with effect. The framing of the issue leads to a conclusion that segregation in education is bad because the outcome is bad; namely that black children feel stigmatized since separation of the races is usually interpreted as marking inferiority. The rationale of this opinion seems to be that black children feel less motivated and are less likely to succeed in segregated school systems. The inference is that if we eliminate formal segregation, then there is no longer a formally sanctioned set of laws that result in this stigmatization. Thus, there is no violation of equal protection. But this approach is too concentrated on the outcome of the laws and succumbs to a view of race that only recognizes formally demarcated lines of discrimination. The result is that the Brown decision fails to attack the structural and institutional problems in society that create these racial inequalities. In doing so, the Court fails to challenge the idea of white supremacy being a natural product of social interaction. In fact, taken to its extreme, one reading of the Brown opinion is one of white paternalism and pragmatism: because there can be no quality in separate facilities and because we want to promote the United States as the leader of the free world, it is necessary for whites to help out blacks by disrupting the natural social order and mandating integration.

Rather than focusing on formal categories of racial classification, I would instead focus on the question of what message the government is sending. By solely looking at the outcome of segregation, the Court is able to circumvent the more pressing issue of how the system and process of segregation communicates a message of inferiority. Indeed, segregation was commonly justified on the basis of maintaining white supremacy and protecting racial purity. One need not look any further than the fears of miscegenation prevalent throughout much of this country’s storied history to see this. Underlying segregation is a belief in some sort of racial truth or natural order that reaffirms socially constructed notions of racial hierarchies. Segregation then was used to help build, perpetuate, and justify racial hierarchies and white supremacy. And it is for that reason that segregation cannot be tolerated in this country, especially in the context of primary education because it imbues our youth with a false belief in an artificial racial order at the beginning of their lives. It is then reiterated and reproduced throughout society in ways that embed this belief in the very hearts of our citizenry.

By focusing on the government action, we can get at these deeper problems and begin to dismantle the existing racial hierarchy. If we begin to scrutinize the racialized history of our country, it becomes clear that the law has always played a role in constructing systems of racial subordination. Through racialized immigration control, racial limitations on naturalization, criminal evidence laws, slavery, internment, and so forth, it becomes apparent that the laws and procedures of this country have historically stratified the races in a way that created, maintained, and protected white supremacy. If we reframe the issue to look at the ways in which the system of segregation was designed to maintain this status quo, then we can challenge the idea of a racial hierarchy. It is not a natural, social product that whites came to power and have maintained that power. Rather, it is through the systematic and intentional insulation of whiteness through the laws of this country that whites have come to enjoy a position that sits them atop this country’s racial hierarchy. It is only through looking at the historical and societal disparities and asking what role the government has played in creating the racial hierarchy that allows us to begin to breakdown systems of racial domination.

The celestial court thus upholds the ruling of the Supreme Court in Brown, but on alternative grounds. It is because of the historical and societal inequities that segregation simply has no place in the laws of the United States.

---

[1] 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[2] 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

[3] Id. at 551 (“[t]he argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals.”).

[4] Id. (“...assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not be reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”).

Beginning

After a little bit of debate, I've decided to try to write again. For myself, that is.

I definitely feel like each time I've endeavored to take on a semi-regular project of writing, I'm at a distinctly different place in my life with significant shifts in some of my thinking. It is for that reason that I decided to create a new journal, to demarcate the latest installment of my thoughts.

I'll cover a few administrative things that I feel are important for anyone who actually feels compelled to read anything I write here.

First and foremost, the purpose of why I write. I write to express myself. I've always found that putting my thoughts down in words helps me to understand a lot of the things that are going through my mind. Also, I feel like it keeps my sharper. When I go on spurts where I don't write anything, I find my vocabulary condenses, my grammar goes to shit, and in general I often just can't find the words to communicate with other people effectively. It's a constant battle to try and write. I hate my writing, I hate feeling exposed, I hate feeling like an egomaniac thinking that anyone actually wants to hear anything I have to say, and I hate feeling like I have to filter out the content of what I say, which inevitably always happens. Nevertheless, I've spent a lot of time writing to myself in some form or another since I was about 15, obviously with a big change in content, but it's just something that's helped bring me some peace of mind.

Having said that, it logically follows then that my writing is very personal. Ever since a class I took on Gandhi, I've grown quite fond of the idea of trying to eliminate the space between the private and public spheres of my life. What that entails for me is trying to remove the filter that's applied when I write knowing that there is a potential audience. It might seem counter-intuitive to try and post private ideas in a space where privacy is almost guaranteed to be destroyed (the internet), but that's the point. Ownership and accountability for the things I write seems to be the end goal. It's always been my belief that if something is too personal or too embarrassing to let others know, then it's probably not something I should be proud of privately either.

The consequence of this is that my writing is often the place where you will find me most vulnerable and exposed. As a result, I don't always like to talk about the things I write about. I don't take myself too seriously. This is the one venue where I am willing to commit to being serious and unfiltered. To that end, I do take my writing seriously more times than not, and you will see me talking about things and looking at things from an angle that I otherwise would probably never approach things from. Sometimes, it's just too close and I don't like feeling so exposed. So that might help explain why these posts often can't be reconciled with other actions.

On to content.

I'm sure you're questioning what the title "the daily douche" means. Simply put, two of my buddies joking opined how they wished I would start some sort of column or blog, mostly a product of my frequent angry ranting and general disdain for human beings. While I unfortunately will not be able to live up to their wishes in dedicating this spot exclusively to verbally assaulting people, I thought the title was somewhat appropriate and somewhat catchy.

As to what I will be writing about, this will entail a variety of things. Usually, there's simply things on my mind that I feel like hashing out by writing about it. But I also would like to encourage anybody who wants to engage me in conversation or confrontation to pose any questions or topics you would like to see me address. For the most part, I am committed to dealing with any question or topic, regardless of how personal or uncomfortable it might be. There will be some discretion, but those of you who know me well know that I don't have a whole lot of discretion to begin with. You can leave a comment here or e-mail me at chin.ryant@gmail.com.

I will try to keep things from being too preachy, but I can't make any promises. And despite the name, I will most likely not come anywhere even remotely close to writing daily. With all that said, let the douching begin.