"It's Just a Dress"

by John Stevenson

Keziah Daum, an 18-year-old high school senior in Salt Lake City, was looking for a dress for her prom.  She wanted something attractive, unique, and modest.  At a vintage clothing store she found a red and gold form-fitting, ankle-length, short-sleeved, Chinese-inspired dress with a high neckline.  It’s called a “qipao.”  She thought it was perfect and she bought it.

She and her friends had their pictures taken wearing their prom attire.  So far, so good.

Then---oops---she posted the pictures on social media, where they came to the attention of  members of the perpetually offended class. 

Daum was accused (via Twitter) of “cultural appropriation,” the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture.  The offended believe that this should be a class-one felony, akin to an unwanted kiss or a mass murder.  It is typically punished by public shaming, followed by groveling apologies, sensitivity training, and sometimes the establishment of programs benefitting members of the originating (offended) culture.

The first criticism of Daum’s wardrobe selection was an Apr. 27 Twitter posting: “My culture is NOT your goddamn prom dress.”  A later post by the same person likened a white girl wearing a qipao “to colonial ideology.”  That original posting got 42,000 re-tweets and 180,000 likes as of May 3.  There was a typhoon of criticism, calling Daum, among other things, (you guessed it, of course) a racist.  (And yes, “typhoon” itself is culturally appropriated from the Chinese “tai fung.”)

Well, let’s see how the Chinese themselves reacted to the cultural appropriation of the qipao by the 18-year-old American girl. 

The English language Chinese news outlet chinadaily.com reported that public reaction was favorable, and offered some examples:  “It is not cultural appropriation, it’s cultural appreciation…Let the girl know that many Chinese people think she looks stunning in this beautiful dress.”  And “As a Chinese, we all very proud and delighted to share our cultural fashions with anyone around the world.  We all support her.”

An on-the-street youtube video featured an interviewer showing passers-by a photo of Daum and asking if it was OK for foreign women to wear the qipao.  Again, reaction was favorable:  “Totally OK. It has a retro sort of classic feel.”  And “Looks really good.”

The Wenuxue City News quoted an interview saying “Really don’t understand the people who are against [Daum], they are wrong!  I suggest the Chinese government, state television or fashion company invite her to China to display her [qipao].”

The South China Morning Post reported social media posts: “It’s not cultural theft. It is cultural appreciation and cultural respect.”  And “There is no problem as long as there is no malice or deliberate maligning.  Chinese cultural treasures are worth spreading all over the world.”

Others posted to social media such as:  “I am proud to have our culture recognized by people in other countries.” 

Zhou Yijum, a Hong Kong-based cultural commentator, said “It’s ridiculous to criticize this as cultural appropriation…if a foreign woman wears a qipao and she thinks she looks pretty, then why shouldn’t she wear it?”

China-based Amy Qin, who covers culture, politics, and society across Asia in the New York Times reported that sentiment in Taiwan was similarly supportive of Daum.

According to Samantha Schmidt, writing in the Washington Post, feelings among many Chinese-Americans were also positive.  She gave examples: “I am a collector of [qipao],..and I think it is ridiculous other people are judging you.”  And “As Chinese, we are very proud and delighted to share our cultural fashions…I love how you wear the dress…You rock!”  And ”I am a Chinese woman. I support you. You rocked the dress!...people might be just jealous that you look awesome in that dress.”

The reported support for Daum by people in China and Taiwan, as well as by Chinese-Americans, doesn’t constitute a scientific sampling of public opinion among those populations.  But it does reveal that the politically correct position on cultural appropriation is not universally held.  In fact, it shows that members of the allegedly exploited culture are not offended at all.  Instead, they consider it cultural appreciation.

Daum emailed China Daily that she was “overwhelmed by the many people from China who have both reached out to me and have posted to social media their viewpoints. I thank them for the moral support regarding my decision to wear a qipao.”

As for the cultural appropriation warriors, Daum offered this:  “There are people who are going to find something to offend them no matter what it is.” 

Objective observers think Daum’s choice of wardrobe was totally innocent. The perpetually offended should at least give her the benefit of the doubt---assuming they are capable of doubt. 

Daum summed it up:  “I didn’t intend for anyone to think I’m trying to be racist.  It’s just a dress.”

The Cry Closet

by John Stevenson

By now you have probably read of the most recent incarnation of “safe spaces” on campus.  At the University of Utah a “cry closet” has been established to accommodate stressed-out students who are overwhelmed by the tremendous pressures of college.

The cry closet is located in the J. Willard Marriott Library.  It was a product of a class project completed by Nemo Miller and two of her classmates. 

The idea is that students distressed by the pressures of final exams could go into the closet where they would find a darkened environment, plush floor, fabric walls, soft materials, stuffed animals, and other toys.  There the distraught could have a good cry and emerge stress-free. 

The cry closet was endorsed by the University.  Spokesperson Jana Cunningham said the cry closet was a place to “Just let it all out.  Let yourself just get away from your studies….” 

Some students were enthusiastic about the cry closet:  Student Jayde said  “I think one of these should be everywhere all the time.”  Others took a different view, such as:  “Way to prepare students for the real word. Wonder how many prospective employers have cry closets?”  A Utah ex-Congressman called it “pathetic.”

So there were conflicting opinions of the cry closet, the purpose of which was to provide a space for students who were feeling overwhelmed with the stress of finals.

Cry closet creator Nemo Miller explained her reason for creating the cry closet in this enlightening statement:  “I am interested in humanity and the inherent complexities of the human condition.  In my work, I reflect on my experiences and explore what it means to be human.  One aspect of humanity that I am currently exploring is connections and missed connections through communication.  It’s been interesting to watch the response to this piece about human emotions, and I’m proud to see the power of art in action.”  Got all that?

The University of Utah has taken down its cry closet with the May 2 end of finals.  However, it is likely this silly concept will not slink away in ignominy but will metastasize and blossom on other American college campuses. 

Let’s think for a moment about other college-age Americans and the stresses they faced.  Some of those in our parents’ generation came of-age on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima.  Were there safe spaces and cry closets?

In their teens, our own contemporaries fought at Inchon and in Viet Nam.  No cry closets on either of those campuses. 

More recently American youngsters were tasked with taking Fallujah (twice) and dispatching Osama bin Laden to his Paradise.  No cry closets along those trails either.

Still today, college-age Americans go through U.S. Navy SEAL training, USMC recruit training at Parris Island, and U.S. Army Ranger training.  Again, no safe spaces or cry closets.

Not to say that nowadays most teens join the military, let alone its elite units.  Few do.  But even in the civilian world there are likely not many employers who supply time-out spaces for employees who think they are stressed and need to cuddle a teddy bear.

Looking back on it, college was pretty stress-free compared with later life.  More-or-less-equal parts studying and partying.  Encouraging college students to believe they are under great stress is a disservice.  Particularly leading them to believe that relieving their stress is a legitimate function of the university---even its duty.

This would be funny except for the fact that it sabotages the already slim chance that what nowadays passes for a liberal arts college education will prepare a student for the world that awaits.

Let's Repeal the Second Amendment

by John Stevenson

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an essay for the New York Times in which he advocated for the repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  For those whose time is spent following the latest news about the Kardashians, the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” 

Despite the Second Amendment saying this right “shall not be infringed,” there has been plenty of infringing going on.  Here’s a list of Federal firearms control laws: National Firearms Act (1934); Federal Firearms Act (1938); Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968); Gun Control Act (1968); Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986); Undetectable Firearms Act (1988); Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990); Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993); Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994).  There may be others, but you get the drift.

This is not to say whether these laws are good or bad, effective or not.  Clearly, we don’t want people running around with bazookas or worse, so prohibiting that is a good thing.  Also clearly, the gun-free zone concept has backfired with tragic consequences.

Besides these Federal laws, States and local jurisdictions also have enacted laws to make gun sale or ownership difficult or, in some locations, downright illegal.  In addition, local jurisdictions have passed prohibitions, restrictions, or permit requirements for the carrying of guns openly or concealed.  So that gun owners can “bear” arms but only with great difficulty. 

So various jurisdictions have, in effect, infringed the heck out of the right to keep and bear arms no matter what the Second Amendment has to say.  And the Judicial Branch has gone along with some but not all of it.

There was a precursor to retired Justice Stevens.  In 1991, retired Chief Justice Warren Burger was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.  He voiced the view that there should be no Second Amendment---no “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Currently, there are various groups who advocate for repeal.  For example, MoveOn.org is sponsoring an on-line petition which they plan to deliver to the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.  This is a symbolic gesture.  Neither the President, nor the Senate, nor the House can repeal a Constitutional amendment.  In fact, even if all three were agreed on repeal they could not do it.

What would be required to rescind the Second Amendment?  You got it---another amendment!  And The Founding Dads wisely made amending the U.S. Constitution difficult.  Not impossible, but difficult.  Thus any amendment which passed would have to reflect a broad consensus within the country.  Here is what’s required. 

The “easy part”:  The Congress by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House, can propose an amendment.  Alternatively, upon request of two-thirds of the States, the Congress can call a Constitutional Convention, which in turn can propose an amendment.

And the hard part:  In order to take effect, the proposed amendment must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States.  (It’s slightly more complicated, but that’s the gist of it.)

It’s not impossible.  The Constitution has been amended 27 times.  Almost all of the 27 amendments were ratified without any States voting against.  Of the amendments which were ratified but not unanimously, only one had more than two states voting against.  (Four States opposed the Sixteenth Amendment.)

So what are the chances for ratification of an amendment repealing the Second Amendment? 

Let’s make a couple of assumptions.  Let’s stipulate that the Democratic Party is generally for more gun control while the Republican Party is generally not.  Republicans control both houses of the legislatures in 31 States; let’s assume those 31 States would oppose repealing the Second Amendment.  Democrats control both houses of the legislatures in 14 States; let’s assume those 14 States would all support repeal.  There are also four split States, where one house is controlled by Republicans and the other by Democrats; just for the sake of this illustration, let’s put all four split States in the repeal column.  The one remaining State (Nebraska) has an officially nonpartisan legislature, but the State went heavily (60%) Republican in 2016 so it goes in the opposed column.

So, under these generous assumptions, as many as 18 States might vote to ratify a hypothetical amendment to repeal the Second Amendment---while 32 States would not.  But in order to be ratified, three-fourths of the States would have had to vote in the affirmative---that’s 38 States!  Where would the forces for repeal make up the deficit of 20 States?  Given the polarizing nature of this issue, that’s an impossible task.

Bottom line: No matter how much Stevens, Burger, MoveOn, and others might wish it to evaporate, the Second Amendment is almost certainly here to stay.