On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:26 PM, J. Daniel Hull
Yesterday, I wrote a post (here) criticizing a lawyer, Jeena Cho who writes about and promotes the ideas of civility, emotional intelligence, self-awareness and “mindfulness” for lawyers. My criticisms and attempts to make them humorous or satirical are not important in this post. What’s important now is that I acknowledge that I made a real mistake in the way I commented. Well, “fuck-up” is the right term here.
Yesterday, Jeena Cho, who is Asian, published at Above the Law an article, “Happy Law Day! Can We Bring Civility Into Law?.” As usual, the article was quickly followed by comments of ATL readers. Regular readers at the Above the Law will recognize a commenter (who is also a Facebook friend of mine) who posts and comments as Partner Emeritus. He’s a retired “Big Law” lawyer, curmudgeon and gadfly at ATL who regularly lambasts writers and their ideas at ATL. He does this through satire, usually in the snob persona of a New England Brahmin, and sometimes makes comments of a sexist or racist variety. I think of him as an Ivy League-version of Archie Bunker, Borat or Ali G. He’s consistently funny but over-the-top irreverent, and makes light of discrimination and unfairness through a colorful but flawed persona. He made a comment suggesting that Jeena might be better off working as a massage therapist and, further drawing on this Asian stereotype, and asked for her services when she was next in New York City.
After I made my own critical substantive comment about the article, I seized on the massage therapist comment, saying it was “most on point”. This was intended to be ironic–how could massage therapy have anything to do with lawyer civility and “mindfulness”?–and to add to the humor. I later referenced both of my comments in my blog post.
The shorter “most on point” comment in the ATL comments and referenced in my blog was my critical mistake. If you didn’t know about the Partner Emeritus persona (i.e., satire), and you knew nothing about me, you might think that I was condoning a racist or sexist view. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I had thought my intention was clear: to add to the absurdity and funniness of the massage therapist stereotype. I tried to mix criticism and humor fairly. But I’ve re-read it and, I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise. A fair reading of what I wrote would lead the reader to believe that I meant to state, or imply, that Jeena’s ideas are in any way less relevant or important on the basis of her race or her gender. I may disagree with her ideas–and I do–but I think that the way I ended my piece was insensitive and stupid.
I screwed up. Badly. I will apologize to Jeena privately–and soon
In the future, I will do better. I may be an opinionated baby boomer but I can improve. Jeena might have ideas that I disagree with, but I can respect at least one thing about her philosophy. And, to be sure, she had the opportunity to really take a broadside at me over this. She didn’t. That tells me a lot about her.
Yesterday, I wrote a post (here) criticizing a lawyer, Jeena Cho who writes about and promotes the ideas of civility, emotional intelligence, self-awareness and “mindfulness” for lawyers. My criticisms and attempts to make them humorous or satirical are not important in this post. What’s important now is that I acknowledge that I made a real mistake in the way I went my comments.
Yesterday, Jeena Cho, who is Asian, published at Above the Law an article, Happy Law Day! Can We Bring Civility Into Law?. and things descended, unintentionally, into a racist and sexist swamp. Readers of Above the Law will recognize a commenter (who is also a Facebook friend of mine) who posts and comments as Partner Emeritus. He’s a retired “Big Law” lawyer, curmudgeon and gadfly at ATL who regularly lambasts writers and their ideas at ATL. He does this through satire, usually in the or snob persona of a New England Brahmin, and sometimes makes comments of a sexist or racist variety. I think of him as an Ivy League-version of Archie Bunker, Borat or Ali G.
So Partner Emeritus made a comment along the lines that Jeena might be better off working in a massage parlor, than as a lawyer “” satirizing a common racist trope. I then referenced that in my post. My intent was to laugh at his comment. However, I called his comment the “most on point.”
That was fucking stupid.
I thought my intention was clear. But, in re-reading it, I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise. I think a very fair reading of what I wrote would lead the reader to believe that I meant to state, or imply, that Jeena’s ideas are in any way less relevant or important on the basis of her race or her gender. I may disagree with her ideas, but I think that the way I ended my piece was insensitive and stupid.
I fucked up. I apologize. I should do better. I might be 9,000 years old, but I still can learn. Jeena might have ideas that I disagree with, but I can respect at least one thing about her philosophy “” she had the opportunity to really take a broadside at me over this. She, instead, handled it with grace and “mindfulness.”
That just made me feel even worse.
So, way to lead by example, Jeena. My apology is sincere and heartfelt.
And, in the future, I still might make a comparison to you on ethnic lines – but I’d say that you’re much more appropriately compared to Sun Tzu than to some racist trope.