Today, I attended a conference, but not just any conference, this conference was for business owners excited about taking the next step. These men and women were looking toward the horizon of “Government Contracting” and excited about the possibilities. The Governor spoke to the crowd, quoting such people as Frederick Douglas and John F. Kennedy. He spoke of the stides that Maryland has made over the past 4 years to bridge the gap between minority businesses and those of the “majority”. After he spoke, Pepco had a representitive take the stage, followed by Verizon. Both companies spoke of their commitment to diversity and how they are currently and will continue to do business with minority contractors.

All of these items led into a series of break out sessions which informed the eager attendees of how to get started with government contracting, get certified, market themselves and obtain contracts. It was a day that was both enlightening and empowering. Hopefully, more of these seminars will take place across the state and across the country. Someone mentioned to me at the conference today, “The Government is the only place that there is NO recession”, so with many minority business owners in desperate need of cash flow this conference was a great start to get them on the right track.

For more information on MBE Certification, www.mdminoritybusiness.com. Or call (410) 767-8232 or (877) 558-0998.

Stay tuned for many other opportunities to get your business “On The Right Track”. We will keep them coming so you can keep the money coming in.

-Alicia Jones, CEO, Strategy Solutions

     Most law firms understand the importance of attracting and retaining diverse attorneys, but only some are taking the necessary steps to reach out to attorneys of color, women attorneys and LGBT attorneys.  Before a firm can be successful at this endeavor, they must realize how much it will add to their firm to have attorneys who have had different life experiences and hold distinct views.  This is especially important now with law firm clients being more diverse than ever.

     Many of the larger firms hired diversity directors before the recession.  Unfortunately, a large number of these positions were cut in late 2008 due to the poor economic conditions.  Instead, a number of firms have moved to diversity committees comprised of attorneys and the administration of the firm.  The groups generally meet monthly to talk about diversity issues and work to implement policies toward attracting and retaining more attorneys of color and women attorneys.  While many firms do not discuss the importance of attracting and retaining LGBT attorneys, some are more forward thinking and are starting to. 

     While the diversity committees are a very helpful vehicle for working on diversity issues, they are not enough.  Once minority, women and LGBT attorneys are attracted to firms, the firms must work to keep them.  Assigning a mentor to all diverse attorneys is key to retaining them.  As a legal recruiter, I cannot begin to tell you how many minority and women attorneys I have worked with who have told me that they just did not get the substantial meaty assignments that went to the white males at their firms.  If they had a great mentor to ensure that they received good work, 9 out of 10 of them would still be at their prior law firms.

     One final way to help law firms recruit and retain attorneys of color, women attorneys and LGBT attorneys is to work with a recruiting firm who specializes in these issues.  At SMR legal Search, we have worked with many law firms on these and other sensitive issues and have been very successful.

On Al Jazeera this weekend, a very interesting debate took place hosted by Avi Lewis regarding The Color of Recession.  According to statistics, the unemployment rate for minorities is around 34%, while unemployed white Americans are only at 7.2%, says the NY Times.

The programme featured four panellists who debated the issue of race, including ‘Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow Coalition; Rosa Clemente, an activist and former Green Party Vice Presidential candidate; Linda Chávez, director of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity and the Reverend Greylan Hagler of the United Church of Christ.’

The discussion focused a great deal on the Obama administration, at times criticizing the new president’s failure to focus on helping minorities, who have been affected more strongly by the economic downturn.  Referring to Obama’s focus as a ‘colour blind approach’, Lewis puts the question to the panellists: Is Obama letting down people of colour?

The answers, surprisingly, are more varied than one might expect.  Rosa Clemente, for example, was dissatisfied with Obama’s actions so far, criticizing that the President has not focused his energies on minority unemployment issues.  Linda Chavez agreed, but also added that Obama is offering the ‘same old solutions’ to the economic crisis.  She believes this will only cause more problems for America in the future.

Reverend Jackson, who in many ways represents more traditional ideas about racial inequality, didn’t show any great opposition to President Obama.  Jackson did, however, disapprove of banks investing from the ‘top down’ rather than the ‘bottom up.’

Obama’s only supporter seemed to be Reverend Hagler, who suggested that people support the President rather than holding him to ridiculous standards.   He reminded the audience that Obama is a president, who must answer to and work with other groups such as the legislative branch.  ‘He is not a king,’ said Hagler.

Reparations

Though the discussion centred around the effects of the economic crisis on minorities, there was ultimately an argument about reparations to people of colour.  Should reparations be made?  All but one believed there should be.  Chavez maintained that the generation of minorities existing in America today are so disconnected from those who suffered from racial discrimination that there would be no point to making reparations. 

What was most disturbing about the discussion is that in almost everyway it seemed to undermine what President Obama is trying to do.  And what is Obama’s goal?  Is it simply to get a nation through one of the worse economic crises it has ever experienced?  Is it to end a war, while ensuring that Afghanistan is not left in such a weak state that the Taliban can easily overtake it again?  While all of these goals are no doubt part of Obama’s plans, it becomes clear from his campaign that a loftier goal is in place: Saving a nation from their own short-sidedness in regards to race.

So much of Obama’s presidential campaign appears to have focused on race.  And it seems clear that Obama understood what Europe has known for many years; Race is America’s greatest problem.  The children of oppressors and the oppressed have been taught by their ancestors that race is indeed, a huge subject and should be treated as such.  And while this poses no problem for the American who is accustomed to making race a very big issue, it consistently undermines the great cultural theorists of this generation who wisely maintain that the only way to overcome racism, sexism and the classification of ‘Otherness’ is by giving absolutely no respect to the ideology of classification.  In other words, ignoring the idea of race forces or at least impels others to deal with a person’s humanity rather than their skin colour.  It is a reminder of that which makes us similar, rather than what makes us different.

President Obama is, no doubt, a part of this new school of thought at least to some degree.  While he does not ignore race, he certainly has committed himself to making decisions that do not focus on the race of the American in crisis.  His proposals for healthcare, economic solutions and war will likely not include reparations to any race in particular.

Is this a good plan of action?  It may be more accurate to say that it is a necessary plan of action.  Who among us wants a leader, who makes decisions based on skin colour.  It was morally wrong when it was done by those who formerly held positions of power.  It would be wrong now.  In fact, it might further destroy the task of healing the wounds between races in America.  The ‘what about me’ syndrome exists on both sides.   

People are discriminated against for all sorts of reasons including gender and race.  It is ridiculous to believe that an epoch of racial prejudice has not been passed down to both black and white Americans the way family heirlooms are passed down to grandchildren.  Why would you believe even the most righteous of equality leaders over your own parents unless you were ready to challenge everything you had ever been taught?  Yet, it is equally ridiculous to believe that the consequence of such programming does not also include a fundamental fear and mistrust of anyone who is different.  Even small children teach us this in grade school where the slightest abnormality causes a student to be the focus of ridicule and cruelty.

Beyond Race

Still, what is crucial here is whether or not Obama’s regime of ‘colour blindness’ seeks to be an example by teaching people to function beyond the idea of race.  If the goal of the current administration is to eliminate the need for classification, the very idea of discrimination, therefore, is called into question. After all, is it productive to use classification as a defence?  For example, is it effective for someone to say, ‘He is treating me inappropriately because I am Indian and a woman?’  Or is it more effective to say, ‘He is treating me inappropriately?’  How much more useful would it be to focus on the issue of mistreatment, rather than the issue of race or gender?

There is no doubt that if Obama is a student of the school of thought that seeks to take the focus from classifications, therefore eliminating the power of ‘Otherness’, he has his work cut out for him.  Enticing people from a lifetime of programming is not something that can be done in four or even eight terms of a presidency.  Yet, Obama’s biggest followers have often interpreted his message as one of hope.  And since a minority has managed to obtain the highest position in America, then we can only imagine that change is possible and that perhaps, Americans are on the cusp of that change.

For NY Times statistics on unemployment in America, please go to http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/business/economy/unemployment-lines.html

That was not a rhetorical question!  Do they, the Repubs, know that they are stupid?  It is a fair question…..I mean from “death panels” to political theatrics……

This post could go on forever…..but for the sake of brevity I will focus on John Boner……oh crap!……my bad!……John Boehner, the Minority leader of the House of Representatives, he has pulled a wealth of boners in his tenure as the Repub leader….the one that stands out is his holding up the Constitution to make a point and then read the DoI…..or his saying that he is receiving more emails against health care reform and a local poll shows that 60% of his district want that reform…..but the best one is that he and his Repub colleagues keep bashing the spending of the Obama admin saying that if they are returned to power they will hold spending down….that they will once again be a party of less government…HA!….they overlook the fact that while they were doing GW’s dirty work they were the party of SPENDING…..but that they have learnbed their lesson….and will be frugal with the taxpayers money…..

I know you ask, what is wrong with that?  Nothing but is it true?

In a country that is reeling from massive unemployment….no consumerism to speak of…..and an economy that will take years to recovery….the Minority leader is showing his leadership is NO fluke…….the Politico is reporting:

The golf events this year sponsored by Boehner’s Freedom Project political action committee have stretched from April until October, from Florida to Ohio. And the minority leader doesn’t hold his events at worn-out municipal courses. The most recent outing was a $20,921.34 event at the plush Robert Trent Jones track in Gainesville, Va., an invitation-only private club that was once also home to the Professional Golfers Association’s President’s Cup.

By all public estimations, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is a pretty good golfer.

He should be, given the $82,998 his political action committee has spent on golf outings so far this year, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

He , Boehner, has spent more in the three cases than 20% of the population will make as earnings….Does it make sense to preach to the American people and then go out and spend more money that they will make this year?  It shows two things arrogance and a loss of the plight of the American people, especially those ion the district that he represents ….this will come back to bite him in the ass in his next run for office……that is if the people of his district are paying attention or do they really care?

Are not the Repubs the ones saying that Obama is out of touch with Main Street?  Go figure……

While I pick on Boehner, but he is not alone…Repubs have shown an amazing indifference to the people and the truth….

Seven Utah schools are recognized for working to closing the gap significantly.  Check it out here:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=8809583

Barbara Marx Hubbard, long regarded, by some individuals, as one of the world’s leading futurists, has defined the term, Synocracy, as:

…Synergistic Democracy…an emergent form of self-governance….the next stage of democracy in which each person has the opportunity to express his or her creativity for the good of the self and the whole. It is a form of governance that facilitates all citizens in finding their unique potential and where best to express it within the whole. It leads toward a cocreative society in which all people are free and responsible to do and be their best. [Emphasis added].

Synergistic is the adjectival form of “synergy” (from Greek sunergia,  cooperation).  Synergistic (synergic), thus, means “acting together,” or “working together in a creative, innovative, and productive manner” (from Greek sunergētikos).

Timothy Wilkin, MD, writing in an 2004 article, stated that “Barbara Hubbard originally coined the term Synocracy to refer to a not yet defined future system of ‘rule by the people’ in a co-Operative society.”   Dr. Wilkin also reported that Barry Carter, the author of Infinite Wealth, claimed that he had independently created the term, Synocracy.  Carter, quoted by Wilkin, wrote on his own behalf:

Barbara Marx Hubbard created the term synocracy. Having never read her book, I independently created the synocracy concept by way of mass privatization. When people are owning partners in a mass privatization organization they must participate because owners operate on profit and loss. As mass privatization communities work together we move beyond representative democracy and even beyond consensus democracy to create synergy-ocracy and synthesis-ocracy or synocracy. Infinite Wealth shows mass synocracy to be the new system of social order for the Information Age to replace representative democracy. It even replaces the notion of government with the broader notion of social order. Just as learning is driven internally where education is driven externally representative government is external and where as self-organizing mass synocracy is internally driven [Emphasis added].

Dr. Wilken observes:

In today’s world…it is assumed without question that majority rule democracy is the best way to organize humanity. To even offer a criticism…is to invite an immediate and often emotional charged attack on oneself. We are quickly asked to choose between majority rule democracy or the dictatorships of communism/fascism. We are quickly reminded that if we don’t like it here in a majority ruled democracy, we are free to leave….

Majority rule democracy in its purest form was found in the Ancient Greek city-states and Early Roman Republic, these were direct democracies in which all citizens could speak and vote in assemblies. This was possible because of the small size of the city-states almost never more than 10,000 citizens. However, even these Ancient democracys [sic] did not presuppose equality of all individuals; the majority of the populace, notably slaves and women, had no political rights at all. So even here the majority really did not rule.

In modern representative democracies we find the majority rule mechanism used to select our representatives, to make decisions within committees and to make decisions within the legislative bodies, however careful analysis reveals we really have rule by the few….

In today’s “FREE” world all political decisions are made using majority rule democracy. The the group deciding may be small—a committee faced with solving some particular problem, or large—the entire voting electorate of a nation choosing a President. Regardless of the size of the group deciding, decision is made when one faction within the group achieves a simple majority. That faction wins the minority faction loses. Majority rule consensus requires only a simple majority to force the minority—the losing voters to accept the position of the majority—the winning voters. There is no need to gain the agreement of all of the members. There is no need to prevent the minority from losing [Emphasis added].

When one looks at the evolution of systems of governance, it becomes clear that, over the course of recorded history, humankind has moved from autocratic, adversarial forms of force and control  (dictatorship, rule by one, or oligarchy, rule by a few), to majority rule democracy (“rule by the most”), and finally to modern representational democracy, which we find has devolved back to “rule by the few.”

The Relationship Continuum

According to Wilkin, “all human choices and all human relationships can be described as falling on a continuum,” viz.,

Adversity – Neutrality – Synergy

 Wilkin defines an “adversary [or adversarial] relationship” to be:

…any relationship wherein the participants are less happy, less effective and less productive than they would be without the relationship. An adversary choice is any choice that reduces the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the participants in the relationship. The sum of the whole relationship in terms of happiness, effectiveness, productivity, profitability, satisfaction, etc. is less than the sum of the parts – less than the sum of the individual’s ability to be happy, effective, productive, profitable, satisfied, etc. outside this relationship.

He defines a “neutral relationship” to be:

…any relationship wherein the participants are equally happy, equally effective, and equally productive as they would be without the relationship. A neutral choice is any choice that has no effect on the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the participants in the relationship. The sum of the whole relationship in terms of happiness, effectiveness, productivity, profitability, satisfaction, etc. is equal to the sum of parts – equal to the individuals’s  (sic) ability to be happy, effective, productive, profitable, satisfied, etc. outside this relationship.

And, finally, Wilken defines a “synergic relationship” to be:

…any relationship wherein the participants are more happy, more effective, and more productive than they would be without the relationship. A synergic choice is any choice that increases the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the participants in the relationship.  The sum of the whole relationship in terms of happiness, effectiveness, productivity, profitability, satisfaction, etc. is more than the sum of the parts – more than the sum of the individual’s ability to be happy, effective, productive, profitable, satisfied, etc. outside this relationship. 

Compared to the rule by the one of dictatorship,  the rule by the most  of majority rule democracy, appears to be a much fairer way. And fairness is perhaps the greatest value of our American nation.  However, it should now be clear to the reader that while Neutral political-economic systems are better for humanity than Adversary political-economic systems. Majority rule democracy is really an Adversary political-economic system pretending to be a Neutral political-economic system. In reality only lip service is given to rule by the most.

The Evolution of Democracy

Dr. Wilkin in his essay Beyond Democracy, has concluded:

What we really have in America, the “freest nation on Earth”, is rule by the few. And, while rule by the few holds some advantage over rule by the one, its advantage does not imply there is nothing better for Humanity.

If we are to find a synergic form of organization for humanity, we will have to look beyond the representive (sic) democracies of today.

Barbara Marx Hubbard has provided the conceptual underpinning for imagining the outcome of Wilkin’s “look beyond.”

The context for the evolution of democracy is the New Story of Creation, cosmogenesis, the discovery that the universe is an interconnected whole system that has been unfolding and transforming for billions of years. This unfolding is always toward higher consciousness and greater freedom through more complex order, and it continues now through us. From atom to molecule to cell to animal to human, and now to a Self-actualized humanity, we are becoming a complex planetary system, always through greater cooperation, connectivity, and synergy [Emphasis added].

This is a multi-billion year trend!  Synergy, the coming together of separate parts to form a whole system greater than the sum of its parts is not idealistic; it is a fundamental tendency in nature.

She quotes from the writing of evolutionary biologist, Elisabet Sahtouris:

Type I ecosystems are populated by aggressive species establishing their niches through intense, sometimes hostile, competition for resources and rapid population growth, while the species in Type III ecosystems tend toward complex cooperative or collaborative systems in which species feed or otherwise support each other to mutual benefit. The Type IIs generally lump together various “transitional” ecosystems. It seems reasonable to ask where the “more advanced” species that can build stable final communities “come from.” How did they evolve? Logically, there must have been a time when only pioneer species existed, yet somehow evolution led to the existence of mature, cooperative species” (Vision in Action, vol. 3, Number 1, 2005) [Emphasis added].

Hubbard concludes:

The human species as a whole has barely reached Type II.  We are in transition as a species toward greater cooperation. The growing threat of self-destruction through domination, control, and self-centeredness is a mighty evolutionary driver that is awakening millions of people within our immature species to move toward more cooperative action. Therefore, one of our fundamental efforts must be to develop processes to cultivate social synergy wherever we can [Emphasis added].

Thus, we can say that the term, synocracy represents the form of governance toward which “cosmogenesis” is slowly (at least from the human view) but relentlessly progressing.

Sometimes I get the impression that all this discussion about fiqh of minority and Muslims living in non-Muslim lands is extremely short sighted especially in USA. It seems to be predicated on the unstated premise that Muslims living as minorities in non-Muslim majority countries is an unprecedented and new phenomenon and thus we have to address questions related to this phenomenon afresh as if there are no precedents. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While it is true that Muslims voluntarily leaving Muslim majority countries en masse and settling non-Muslim majority countries is a relatively new phenomenon which does not have many precedents before the 1950s, Muslims have lived in non-Muslim majority countries and have discussed questions of fiqh that we think are relevant to the situation in American Muslims before. Thus consider the following non-Muslim majority countries and how long have Muslims lived there as minorities.

China: 1350+ years
Russia: 500+ years (I am considering the time after when the fall of the Golden Horde.)
Mongolia: 750+ years

The point is that Muslims have not lived in these countries for hundreds of years without encountering or discussing some of the issues that are being discussed amongst American Muslims e.g., working in the army, relations with other religions, family related issues etc. Thus Muslims have lived in China for almost as long as the advent of Islam. There is even evidence that Muslims were employed in the service of the Chinese Emperor even as far back as the time of the Abbasids. The greatest Chinese admiral Zheng He was a Muslim. At this moment if anyone is thinking about raising any argument about Communists then let me point out that Communists are a recent phenomenon and Muslims have lived peacefully under many dynasties in China. Just because scholars in Muslim majority countries have historically have had a certain opinion about al wala and al bara does not mean that all scholars have had such an opinion. One of the reasons for this post was the discussion going on here and here. Without taking any sides in the debate I will just state that one of the arguments that people are making is that Muslims have had such an opinion for hundreds of years. While I am disputing this I would like to point out that there is another set of Muslims who have had a different opinion also for hundreds of years. Just because they lived hundreds of miles from the centers of Muslim power does not mean that their opinion is any less valid. Just because Muslims in the Middle East have historically envisioned dar-ul-Islam in a certain way (which makes sense given that the European were less than amicable towards Muslims in the Middle Ages) does not mean that Muslims in China have also done so in a similar manner.

To summarize, the point is that Muslims living in these areas have had such debates that we are having now in America, they have lived their lives as peaceful and pious Muslims. Trying to reinvent the wheel or overly relying on Muslim scholars from Muslim majority countries who almost no idea about living in non-Muslim majority countries is borderline arrogant.

We have to understand the geographical features of our continent, about 5000 yeas ago, to understand what happened at that time.

 The Himalayas have been growing up all the while, and it is safe to assume that in those days, travellers could easily cross the region either way. The sentimental attachment of Hindus, towards Kailash and Manasarover is proof of my statement. If we have not seen the place, there will be no love for it. The description of the area as a green forest, in the Bhagavat Puran too confirms this view. Therefore, migration of people across the Himalayas is a distict possibility.

 The most intimate charactoristic of a people, is their language. Early Aryans had Samskrutam as their mother tongue. If today it is a dead language, it is because, those people were in a minority and were forced by circumstances, to forget it and use whatever was the language of the people, among whom they lived. The fact that European Aryans do not know vedas, shows that, they migrated before we composed vedic sutras. 

My children do not know Malayalam. Of course, they can talk in our language. Talking is not literature. To write in Malayalam, it is necessary to learn the script. So Aryans in India, forced their children to learn Samskrutam, in order to preserve their heritage and identity. Their early literature was the Vedas which, enen now, we learn by heart. All debates and writings were in Samskrutam. A poet who wrote in Malayalam was rediculed as half poet !

The Aryans who migrated towards the north and north west, were not so lucky, as we were in India.The fact that several Samskrutam words are transformed into the local language of the area only proves the Aryan ancestry of these people. Maximum similarity is in Hindi, even spoken Hindi. Samskrutham     Hindi            English

 ekam                     ek                   one

 dwayam             doh                  two

 thrayam             theen              three ( here the English word too is similar) dasham                dus                  ten (“decimal” is derived from Samskrutam) mathr                     matha          mother (derived from Samskrutam)

bhradru                  bhai              brother ( do )

Russian and German languages have many Samskrutam words. It was a German scholar who wrote Malayalam grammar!

 During second world war, a German scholar  met the King of Cochin, who was a scholar in Samskrutam, They started chit chatting in Samskrutam; the English Resident was scared. The King was asked to abdicate.

 Those Aryans who migrated to the peninsular India, accepted the local language, but continued to patronise Samskkrutam ,as there were no books in local languages.  Thus the conclusion is inevitable. Aryan migration is from India towards Europe. Why they did not go towards Tibet and China, is a mystery.

Sexual contact with the local people was inevitable. Hence, the Aryan features are dimmed and local charactoristics became prominent.

 Theoretically, we may say that north Indians are Aryans and others are non Aryans. In this, we ignore the people living in the hills, including the north east.

Davidians are a mystery. Unlike others, they have body hair, jet black complexion, teeth pushing the lips outwards, heavy jaws and stocky, short body. There is not a single Samskrutam word in Tamil which has only 26 letters. Malayalam too had no Samskrutam words. The numbers onnu, randu, moonnu, nalu, anchu, aru, ezhu, ettu, onpathu and pathu (one to ten) of Malayalam can be understood by people of all states in the south. It is a proof that Dravidian people are a distinct group. They are even earlier than the civilisation of the north.

Hanuman was impressed bythe grandeur of the Lankan capital, which seemed to be paradise in this world!

 Tamil literature was highly developed, even before English education spread in the country.

 Every day we read about new archeological discoveries in Tamilnadu.

“I wanted to tell you this earlier, actually on off-line face-to-face meeting.  I actually tried to say this in person during the summer when we were hanging out.  I’ve been dating a girl.”

For about 4-5 seconds, I was dumbfounded.

“What about your boyfriend whom you talked about?”

“Well, that ‘boyfriend’ was in fact a girl.  I’m really sorry.”

Here she was, my best friend whom I’ve known since high school, now saying that she is a sexual minority.  Yes I was surprised, but it did not come to me as a massive shock.  We have known each other for a long time.  We talked a lot.  We hung out a lot.  We spent so much time together. I know what she likes and doesn’t like.  She knows the same about me.  We hold similar values in life, and we have similar way of thinking and problem solving.  So only thing that’s changed about her is, her “boyfriend” is in fact a “girlfriend.”  Other than that, she’s still the person I used to know.

“O rly?”

“You are not surprised?”

“I was a bit, but not that much.  It’s not that something I can persuade you to change.  On the top of that, I’ve known you for a long time and you are still my good friend.  Why didn’t you tell me before?”

“Not a lot of people are cool about it like you.”

The o-holy Beatles said, "All you need is love."

Not sure about all the details, but back in the highschool she did not know she was a sexual minority.  She claims that she started to vaguely realize about her sexuality in college.  Though she is sure that she is sexual minority, she’s unsure whether she’s bisexual or homosexual.  This I cannot advise, because I am a straight and have not experienced anything that is uniquely related to the homosexual people.  I suggested her to join her college’s GLBT student club and get a counseling.   She agreed to get a counseling some time, but she is afraid of joining the GLBT club – like myself, she’s Korean and she is more included to the Korean student society in her campus than I did.  Joining her school’s GLBT club might cause her a massive trouble in the Korean student society.  Moreover, doing so might cause further trouble with her parents.  Her parents are not fully aware of their daughter’s sexuality yet.  But for sure, her parents – especially her mom – has VERY negative idea of sexual minority.

Living as a GLBT is a tough thing even in US.  South Korea is even more closed society to GLBT people when compared to US.  Many people still think sexual minority is some kind of mental disease and is disgusting.  Some people who came out as GLBT is not considered as a serious full member of this society.  What really worries me is that my friend plans to come back to Korea so she can go to medical school here.  Being a straight woman, I cannot imagine what kind of hardship she will go through from now on – all I know is that whether she comes out or not, both paths will be incredibly difficult and challenging for her.

To be honest, it is a whole new experience to me, too.  I know several GLBT people among my acquaintances and classmates.  Since we were not that close, the whole GLBT issue was out of my radar.  But now my best friend being a member of GLBT, the whole issue comes to me as a new level.  I will be very upset if she is picked on or not granted any of the rights that are enjoyed by other citizens just because she is in love with a woman.  Now I have another goal on my career (if I can continue it as a HR professional): I want to change the Korean firms, or any other firms to be more open and accepting to foreigners, TCKs and sexual minorities. If a person is a great engineer or manager yet denied from the position or unable to work due to his/her coworkers treat them awfully, just because of his sexual preference and/or cultural background, that is not fair; that is a great loss for the employer too.  They don’t get to bloom their talents and benefit others.  My friend is extremely talented when it comes to biology, math, and chemistry.  If she doesn’t get to use her talent because she is homosexual/bisexual, that is a great loss for everyone.  That’s an unfair game.

Back to my friend – since she was really not comfortable about joining the GLBT club on campus, I highly recommended her to visit counselor.  It will be a long, tought journey for her to be herself: and as a straight friend, all I can do is to stand by her side no matter what.  I just wish what is the best for her and her future.

I just watched last week’s episode of Glee in preparation for this week’s, and while I enjoy a good “everyone is actually caring and compassionate on the inside and truly wants to help someone else out,” I was a bit disgusted by parts.

So, for those of you who don’t watch, I will briefly explain the points. So, first of all, an abled boy plays the Artie, who is in a wheelchair. Here is a good article about the issues surrounding that. It’s hard for me to believe there were no candidates that can act, sing and are actually differently abled.

But, that’s not the point. The point is, the glee club kids are forced by the director to raise money to take the handicap accessible bus to their competition. At first they aren’t too concerned, because Artie always rode with his dad before. Of course, they were reprimanded. So, they are ordered to have a bake sale and have to spend three hours in a wheelchair every day. Of course, those three hours are when everything in the episode happens. Because obviously, they would choose to sit in the wheelchairs at school.

But, let’s say they did. For some reason, they have this change of heart, and are really dedicated to this bake sale, thus making pot cupcakes to raise the money.

However, most of the impetus to raise this money came from a character’s desire to make money to support his baby mama, who told him to put it back. Then, they gave the money to Artie, who generously puts it toward wheelchair ramps instead.

So, yes, it is heart-warming, but here is my problem: Why are the able kids always coming to the rescue of the differently abled? I certainly believe that we all overlook people with disabilities and should go out of our way to help and be more understanding. I do believe that the best way to make change is for the majority to care and act on issues concerning the minority. As long, of course, as the minority is deciding the action.

When do we see Artie, though, deciding the action? Also, why are we congratulating the glee club for doing what they were told to do? And, actually only one of them really did. And, not really for Artie as much as his unborn child, whom everyone thinks is another character’s.

Also! Artie and this girl admit they like each other, kiss, and then the girl admits she has a fake stutter.

I once faked a stutter. At the time, I thought it was cool because my father is one of my greatest role models and he happens to stutter. Let me tell you, faking a stutter is not easy. Perhaps this is why they eventually got rid of it, and this love interest was a good chance to do so. Or, because we want to teach the lesson that fake disabilities are not acceptable. Which they’re not.

But, how many people fake disabilities? Really!? Yes, there are some. But, probably not as many as you think. There are probably far fewer people cheating the disability leave system than society would like you to think. Mostly, because America hates/loves poor people. That’s beside the point.

The point is, no matter how shy and retreating you are, it would take extremes for someone to fake a stutter for years and years. She said she did it because she didn’t want to give a speech on the Missouri Compromise and then kept it to push people away. So, she joined glee club…? Also, it would take a lot to sustain a fake stutter. Stutters, as my dad could tell you, are not easy.

Also, why did the school never make her go to speech therapy? Or, maybe counseling as she obviously is in need of some if she is so adverse to social situations.

Now, I know you Glee fans are like, “It’s a TV show! It’s fiction! It’s campy and a musical and over-the-top, it’s supposed to be unrealistic!”

Right. Agreed. But, isn’t it also supposed to be celebrating diversity? To truly take away a deep, authentic message from this episode, I should be given real, deep, authentic issues explored in a real way. And I believe that can happen in a campy, unrealistic setting. You just have to push past the Crash mentality of the obvious stereotype, the black and white answers and addressing the most minute issues.

I see the greater issue as why the school allows the students to be so nonchalant about Artie’s struggles in the first place. That is the same issue that we live with outside the television. And, let’s say for a second that the fake stutter is a valid learning moment. So why is Artie the only one to call her out on it? We shouldn’t leave the differently abled to be the only voice. We should take their lead and stand behind them.

I have more to say about this. But, this is long enough already. I hope you didn’t happen to be standing where I put my soapbox. I tend to be a pit impassioned occasionally.

If you read this whole thing, you just made my day. It’s been a bit of a rough one, so thank you for letting me vent about this one thing which was therapy for all the other things.

This post is contributed by Dr. Darren O’Donovan. You can read about Darren on our Guest Contributors page.

In this post I want to underline the significance of past and present state policy towards the Travelling Community in understanding how Ireland, like all countries around the world, has silenced and rendered invisible of those who did not belong to, and could not be accommodated within, the idealised story of the Irish nation and majority cultural identity. The exclusion of the experiences of the Travelling Community from the Migration Nation Report as well as recent regressive state policies, underline that to this day, Travellers are regarded as residual to human rights protections relating to cultural rights and equality, as well as to the recent diversity debates in multicultural Ireland.

The watershed moment for Travellers rights was the Task Force Report on the Travelling Community 1995, which called for the ‘redefinition of the Traveller situation in terms of cultural rights as opposed to simply being a poverty issue’. The key to securing this recognition, and protecting it to this day, is an appreciation of the historical exclusion and the distinct identity of Travellers. This battle for history, like those across Europe, must not be influenced by present day derogatory attitudes, but by cogent documented research. The key document, which has long lain obscure and underappreciated, is the Report of the Commission on Itinerancy 1963. This offers the strongest evidence of deeply rooted stereotypical representations and silencing of Travellers. For instance, alongside assertions that Traveller women were unable to undertake housework and that Traveller men suffered from alcoholism and laziness, the Commission also noted that, while it had investigated the possibility of placing the majority of Traveller children within industrial schools, this would present too much of a burden upon the taxpayer. In order to preserve the life-story of the Irish nation, its ideal of Gaelic social communalism and attachment to land, Travellers were not to be understood as possessing cultural traditions, but were rather simply an impoverished group who were forced into occupying caravans by their own economic backwardness. Travellers threaten to rupture the majority’s preferred history, and it requires a conscious identity project to explain away their origins and exclusion.

Presently, the 1995 Task Force Report’s recognition of Travellers’ right to cultural identity is being increasingly disavowed across a variety of sectors. Fundamental to effective protection is the right to participation of Travellers in decisions particularly affecting them. The recent dismantling of the Task Force monitoring bodies, and the institution of the High Level Group on Traveller Issues, an interdepartmental body operating without Traveller participation, underline a shift towards an internal bureaucratic approach to the formation and implementation of state policy. Travellers continue to be affected by the overall disavowal of multicultural citizenship by the State, and the application of concepts such as social cohesion, integration and social capital have obscured the importance of cultural rights, especially the need for targeted measures in areas such as education, health and employment.

The experiences under the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 are a critical resource for those concerned with multicultural recognition or human rights implementation more generally. The duty of local authorities to provide culturally sensitive accommodation remains restrained only by the minimal oversight of judicial review, with the result that the accommodation rate is not in compliance with the State’s human rights obligations. Constructive assimilation persists, with the Act having resulted in only one transient site in its first ten years of operation, alongside a strikingly lower level of permanent halting site provision as compared with housing. The lack of agency oversight, whether through a specialized supervisory body or a properly constituted human rights commission, means that there is a minimal culture of compliance within local authorities. A commitment to an institutional human rights culture is required if issues like needs assessments, the provision of adequate information and inclusive policy planning are to be resolved at a local level. These aspects of human rights implementation have for too long gone underdeveloped in Ireland, with an overreliance upon the resource heavy, sledgehammer option of judicial review. The abolishing of the NCCRI and the budgetary emasculation of the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission, underlines that we remain a jurisdiction without an effective and co-ordinated human rights enforcement strategy.

The denial of Travellers’ status as an ethnic group has become a signatory issue for current government policy and can be linked to the historical discourses I outlined earlier. For majority society, the notion of ethnicity is viewed as applying to the Balkans, not to our ‘local’ Traveller families. The legal status of Travellers as an ethnic group is beyond dispute, as outlined by the Irish Human Rights Commission, the Equality Authority and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The denial by the State is, in many ways, not about judicial rulings, interpreting international human rights law instruments or even, in fact, the word ‘ethnic’ itself. This is seen by the failure of the State to actually set out its understanding of ethnicity. It is aimed at presenting Travellers as residual to broader understandings of culture and international human rights instruments. Anti-Travellerism, for most people in Ireland, is a localised, individualised and recent phenomenon, with struggle for human rights activists and lawyers being to show its institutional elements, the historical disadvantages which have locked Travellers into limited job opportunities and educational outcomes and led to problems such as debt and drug abuse. Just as with all disadvantaged communities, we need an improved public discourse which balances legitimate debates around crime and conflict with a transformative rights-based perspective aimed at sponsoring and reinforcing the everyday choices of Travellers who wish stay in education, to value their history and greater recognition of their contributions to modern Ireland. The majority population remains completely disconnected from the daily lives of the majority of the Travelling community, while a minority continue to attract all the attention of the media and the State. Human rights law and institutions are all about making these daily lives and possible transformations visible.