Discrimination

My "The Hill" Article About Anti-Asian Discrimination on Left and Right

The article shows how the left and right-wing versions of hostility to Asians have much in common.

|

The Hill just published my new article about discrimination against Asians on both left and right. The article also explains how the two have much in common. Here is an excerpt:

The dramatic increase in hate crimes against Asian-Americans over the last year has focused attention on ongoing prejudice and discrimination against this minority group. Many on the left understandably blame Donald Trump's and other right-wing politicians' irresponsible rhetoric about the Coronavirus crisis, which often blurred the line between blaming the Chinese government (which does indeed deserve condemnation for its actions), and blaming Chinese people more generally. The right also deserves condemnation for its increasing hostility to Asian immigrants and refugees, epitomized by GOP Sen. Ted Cruz's scuttling of efforts to grant asylum to Hong Kong refugees fleeing Chinese repression, on the specious ground that they are a threat to national security.

For their part, many conservatives have highlighted the growing trend of elite universities and high schools seeking to reduce the percentage of Asian-Americans in their student bodies. This type of anti-Asian discrimination is primarily driven by left-wing public officials and university administrators.

Lost in this partisan war of words is the reality that both the right and left-wing versions of anti-Asian bigotry deserve condemnation. The two rest on similar flawed foundations and perpetrate similar injustices….

While superficially different, left- and right-wing versions of anti-Asian discrimination actually have much in common. Both rely on crude ethnic generalizations about a highly diverse group. Lumping such different groups as Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and Filipinos into a single category — as school and university administrators routinely do — makes no sense under either the "diversity" or compensatory justice rationales offered to justify racial preferences in education. Among other things, it ignores the fact that many Asian-American groups themselves have historically been victims of discrimination. The same goes for right-wing tendencies to paint Chinese immigrants and students as a threat to our culture and national security — a generalization that ignores the fact that many of them are here precisely because they wish to escape the repressive policies of the Chinese government. In these instances, both right and left judge Asians by the color of their skin and their racial and ethnic ancestry, not by the "content of their character."

Right and left-wing hostility to Asians also often rests on the fallacy that there is a zero-sum game between the interests of different ethnic groups….

 

NEXT: Who's minding the gap?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Seems most of these “hate crimes” are not being perpetrated by the usual stereotype being pushed by the media, the “white guy”, but instead is being done by people of color.

    1. Hi, Ilya. Asians are the least likely of any ethnic group to be the victims of violent crimes. All attacks on Asians have been by Democrats, if people know what I mean. Asians are top performers in the 2010 Census. All journalism violates the Exception Fallacy for partisan political agendas. Stop responding to Fake News. Like writing about an outrage in a Star Trak episode, not real. The fact that you got published in The Hill proves the point. You are an extreme left wing ideologue, and Democrat prostitute. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      1. It’s like a bunch of crazy people each wrote a sentence and they put them in a hat and then pulled out 9 and entered them into this comment.

        1. Ha. Funny. And true. Do you remember Mad-Libs? Daivd’s comments often remind me of this. (I usually think of his posts as “pulled out of his ass.” Your own version of ‘pulled out of a hat’ is much more genteel and charitable. I’m switching to your description.)

    2. Right. Most individuals who harassed, robbed, and attacked Chinese, as reported, happened to be people of color.

      1. As reported? That’s a flimsy basis to make any generalization on.

        1. ‘Just all the actual data we have? That’s a flimsy basis for forming opinions!’

          1. This may shock you, but there is the option of not forming an opinion when no reliable data is available…

            1. “Who you gonna believe? Me or your own [unreliable] eyes?”

            2. You’re a goddamn idiot.

              1. Na na boo boo stick your head in doo doo back at ya.

            3. I believe in forming opinions to the extent that I have data.

              That aside, not liking what the data is telling you doesn’t make it unreliable.

              1. That’s silly when you know you have poor data. Of all people you’d think conservatives would get that media reports are often not representative of much.

                1. Of all people you’d think conservatives would get that if white people were committing these crimes, the media reports would be all over those stories.

                  1. What Michael said. The very fact that these aren’t headline cases is evidence that the assailants aren’t primarily white or right-wing, in today’s media environment.

                    But the best evidence is just the actual evidence, which you’re so eager to dismiss. Security videos. First hand accounts.

                    1. Anecdotes and a sense of white persecution do not prove this.
                      In fact, there doesn’t appear to be stats yet to prove this.
                      And yet you believe it.

                    2. Again, “How dare you form opinions based on the actual evidence!”

                      And how is it that “there doesn’t appear to be stats” we keep citing?

            4. Sure, Queenie, so you drop all your anti-Trump /anti-Republican attacks because of the lack of reliable data.

              I’ll wait

              1. There’s lots of data on how awful Trump supporters are.

                1. Not nearly as bad as the criminals you’re siding with

      2. Show the stats.

  2. So…the “Right” discriminates against Asians from Asia, who have not been in America before, while the “Left” discriminates against American citizens of Asian descent.

    1. And since Ilya despises Americans, it’s clear which he finds worse.

      1. You’re despicable. Ilya’s family loved America enough to come half way around the world to be here, they became citizens the hard way and have contributed to this nation in many ways.

        1. “lya’s family loved America”
          But hates Americans…

          1. Your only evidence of this I imagine is that he thinks people like yourself are goofballs. That doesn’t mean he hates Americans.

            1. Not that I agree with Dr. Ed’s assessment of Ilya Somin, but the evidence he is likely basing his conclusion off of is Ilya’s persistent support for open borders.

              1. Sure, but that’s a silly piece of evidence. I think he is ‘open borders’ because he himself immigrated here and thinks it’s a great option for people.

                1. Ilya thinks America is a great good, which he wants to share with everybody. He wants to share it with everybody to the point that he can’t accept that doing so will destroy that.

                  He’s like somebody who got pulled aboard a life boat after the ship sank, and so loves that lifeboat that he thinks it should take on everybody.

                  And sink, too.

                  1. Brett,
                    Those immigrant workers are going to help pay for the safety net that is increasingly threatened by overwhelming government debt.

                  2. How dumb would it be to say Ilya hates the lifeboat in your analogy? That’s my point here.

                  3. No, Brett. You have read the guy enough to know he thinks open borders will help America.

                    Feel free to disagree with him, but telling how many have to lie about what he thinks.

                    1. I have read enough to know he wants open borders, and thus rationalizes that they will help America.

                    2. 1: The law says that the border isn’t “open”
                      2: He’s not arguing for a change in the law. He’s not arguing that the law is unconstitutional. He’s arguing for allowing the Left, and abusive employers, to simply ignore the law

                      Because the US Constitution, the rule of law, and democracy are all unimportant when they get in the way of his personal desires

                      That’s not a position worthy of respect

        2. Coming here so you can whine and denounce it as “evil” doesn’t qualify as contributing. Ilya and his parents should have been denied entry.

          1. Ilya doesn’t denounce America as evil, and his parents and him have contributed far more than you have or will Aktenturd.

            1. Yes, he does. Every stupid article of his.

              1. No, in none of the does he do so. Your bias and stupidity causes you to read that into them.

      2. Prof. Somin seems to like bigots and right-wing authoritarianism less than some of his colleagues do. This makes him unpopular among fans of White, male, conservative blogs.

    2. I cant be the first person who just now found out about the Hong Kong refugees who are supposedly emblematic of this Republican anti-Asian jihad

  3. “Many on the left understandably blame Donald Trump’s and other right-wing politicians’ irresponsible rhetoric about the Coronavirus crisis, which often blurred the line between blaming the Chinese government (which does indeed deserve condemnation for its actions), and blaming Chinese people more generally. The right also deserves condemnation for its increasing hostility to Asian immigrants and refugees, epitomized by GOP Sen. Ted Cruz’s scuttling of efforts to grant asylum to Hong Kong refugees fleeing Chinese repression, on the specious ground that they are a threat to national security.”

    Not seeing the hate here. Especially not seeing the hate pointed towards US citizens or residents of Asian origin.

    1. Yeah, if complaints about China’s responsibility for the pandemic ever blurred into blaming the Chinese in general, I never noticed. Perhaps some examples are in order?

      Sounds like he’s just taking a left-wing talking point, and uncritically swallowing it.

    2. ” Hong Kong refugees fleeing Chinese repression, on the specious ground that they are a threat to national security”

      Specious my a** — the Cold War was filled with examples of sleeper agents initially arriving as refugees. The CCP is many things, but stupid is not one of them, and they *will* try to plant sleeper agents amongst the refugees.

      1. Manchurian Candidates!

        1. You do know that we got to read the KGB files when the Soviet Union imploded…

    3. Its “irresponsible” to blame China for the pandemic. All blame lies with Trump, to be sure
      And Desantis

  4. Ilya feels obligated to blame the right as a whole by blaming Trump’s rhetoric, and spends more words on this than the widespread, pervasive, institutional discrimination against Asians by institutions fully in the control of the left, like universities, local governments (e.g., exam schools), and etc. And, he fails to even mention that the violence against Asians lately is committed almost exclusively by blacks.

    More trash from the faux libertarian, LINO-progressive Somin.

    1. It’s the price of admission to the cool kids club these days: Any time you admit that the left is doing something wrong, it’s absolutely obligatory to assert that the right is even more guilty. (So the left comes out looking good by comparison.)

      Even if you know that’s not the case, and can’t come up with actual examples.

      “The same goes for right-wing tendencies to paint Chinese immigrants and students as a threat to our culture and national security — a generalization that ignores the fact that many of them are here precisely because they wish to escape the repressive policies of the Chinese government.”

      So, we’re pretending the Chinese government doesn’t coerce escaped Chinese into cooperation, by using relatives who remain behind as hostages? Never happens. All the reports of Chinese espionage at universities? Fiction.

    2. Somin has taken shits that are more libertarian than you.

      1. I didn’t say I was a libertarian, but if it’s shit you want, look behind you.

    3. If there is one thing the obsolete bigots this blog cultivates as a following can’t abide, it is libertarian content.

      Carry on, clingers . . . so far as your betters permit.

      1. Bigot, Arthur? Are you refuting the assertion that most violence against Asians lately is committed by blacks? Let’s hear it.

        1. Is there data on the race of perpetrators of hate crimes against Asians?

          1. It’s easy enough to tell when you see the mug shots of the perps…

            1. So you take reports you see in the news as Gospel on which to base generalizations now?

              1. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read today.

                1. Really? Publius now thinks that the mainstream media reports that he has seen are reliable basis for generalizations. Good to know.

                  1. In fact, one can’t rely on mainstream media reports on this, as they whitewash the ethnicity of the attacker unless it’s a white male; one indicator is that if they don’t mention the race, it was a black guy. You dig deeper, find the video; or wait until the news cycle has died down and find the attacker’s name and profile. In addition, the media will ascribe to racial hate attacks that aren’t, like the Georgia massage parlor shooter.

                    1. You concede the media is not to be trusted but you base generalizations on it’s selections? That’s daft.

          2. https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/when-the-narrative-replaces-the-news-9ea

            “The best data I’ve found for 2020, the salient period for this discussion, are provisional data on complaints and arrests for hate crimes against Asians in New York City, one of two cities which seem to have been most affected. They record 20 such arrests in 2020. Of those 20 offenders, 11 were African-American, two Black-Hispanic, two white, and five white Hispanics.”

            So, that would be 13 / 20 = 65% “black”, 2 / 20 = 10% “white” and 5/20 = 25% “white Hispanic”.

            Any other questions?

            1. For reference, the US population is 62% White, 12% Black, 17%
              Hispanic, and 6% Asian.

              1. ” For reference, the US population is 62% White, ”

                Not for long, clingers. In fact, if that was yesterday’s number, it might have decreased overnight.

                I can’t wait until “White nationalism” means “minority rights.”

                Carry on, clingers. But no for much longer, it appears.

                1. Not that Kirkland cares, but say stuff like this long enough and eventually some unbalanced nut will read it and do something bad.

                2. So, having no actual facts to offer, you feel you must babble something, and therefore spout this stupidity?

                  It must really suck to be you

            2. The proper comparison wouldn’t be US demographics, but NYC demographics.

              White: 42.73%
              Black or African American: 24.31%
              Other race: 14.75%
              Asian: 14.09%
              Two or more races: 3.63%
              Native American: 0.43%
              Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.06%

              1. So that’s what America’s future looks like!

                1. Play with gasoline much?

            3. Yeah, where’d he get his data?

              https://www.newsweek.com/stop-blaming-black-people-anti-asian-hate-opinion-1577887

              People are saying this thing like it’s true, but there is no sign it’s true.

              1. “The study was published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice in January, and it was based on data from 1992-2014.”

                There’s a reason Newsweek went with numbers that were 7-9 years old, and it’s not because more recent numbers are unavailable.

                It’s because they don’t like what more recent data says.

                “In 2018, there were 182,230 reports of Asian victims. Of these, the offender was white 24% of the time and Black 28% of the time. For comparison, the US population is 62% White, 12% Black, 17% Hispanic, and 6% Asian.
                So while the US population has more white people than black people, Asians are victimized in violent crime by Black people more often than by Black people even without adjusting for the population difference.”

                FYI: The FBI’s 2019 numbers have just come out, so expect similar or worse statistics.

                1. This says nothing about 2020. No new goalposts

                  1. You’re pulling numbers from 1992-2014, and then complaining that data from 2018 isn’t “relevant enough”?

                    You should really get that head injury looked at

            4. Wow, that’s provisional data from one city reported by a somewhat questionable source. And you think that’s checkmate. Again, wow.

              1. And you post no data, because no data exists that supports your delusions.

                But you demand that we all entertain your fact free delusions anyway?

                That’s really impressive

              1. You think that if you link to old statistics twice, it becomes more persuasive?

                1. You don’t have much to back up your 2020 thesis either.

                  You now posit black on Asian violence became a thing between 2014 and 2018. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

                  1. Except that that’s what they numbers actually say.

                    Exactly how stupid / dishonest do you have to be, to try that “argument”?

                  2. Well, of course you’re not going to see any reason to think black on Asian violence became worse between 2014 and 2018, if you refuse to use any statistics more recent than 2014!

        2. I am stating that you, and many of your Conspiracy-loving pals, are low-grade bigots. Gay-bashing, xenophobic, Muslim-hating, racist, immigrant-despising, misogynistic losers. The people better Americans must and do overcome to arrange our national progress.

          1. I am none of those things, Arthur, You don’t know me. BUt based on your online persona, you are the very definition of a bigot:

            “A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities that are different from their own. Mostly, the person’s opinions are based on prejudice. For example, an outspoken member of a political party who blocks those with opposing views, would be a prime example of a ”bigot”.”

            That’s you, in spades! (No pun intended.)

            1. One of the great improvements in America during my lifetime is that our residual bigots no longer want to be known as bigots, at least not publicly.

              Thank you, liberal-libertarian mainstream progress!

  5. Many on the left understandably blame Donald Trump’s and other right-wing politicians’ irresponsible rhetoric about the Coronavirus crisis, which often blurred the line between blaming the Chinese government (which does indeed deserve condemnation for its actions), and blaming Chinese people more generally.

    Care to offer any examples. None come to mind.

    1. Ilya’s logic here, typical of progressives, is to conflate anti-Chinese sentiment with anti-CCP sentiment, with the ultimate upshot of silencing critics of the CCP.

      1. The logic is that careless rhetoric attacking ‘China’ and ‘the Chinese’ will quite naturally be taken by some as attacking Chinese and Asian people.

        1. So, what you’re saying is that, if WE attack the Chinese government, and YOU carelessly, or perhaps maliciously, interpret it as attacking ethnic Chinese, that makes US guilty of attacking ethnic Chinese. Even though we actually only attacked the Chinese government.

          Yeah, I’d believe you think that way.

          1. If you use the exact same term in your attacks as the term that refers to the Chinese people then, yes, of course some people are going to read/hear that as what it literally says. That’s not rocket science. Of course, there’s also a context of anti-Chinese sentiment in our history.

          2. It’s more that we’re familiar with Trump, and his base. Trump’s need to blame China to distract from his own mishandling of the virus was so obvious it was embarrassing, Trump’s base, naturally, rallied round him and is, of course, full of racists.

            1. It’s more that we’re familiar with Trump, and his base.

              What’s embarrassing is your clumsy projection of your own stupidity onto others.

            2. Nige, if you use your own beliefs as ‘proof’ that your beliefs are true, that’s just circular reasoning.

    2. Kung Flu? If a virus came from Israel and people called it ‘the Dreidel flu’ it would be recognized, rightly, as anti-Semitism. And if people kept using such rhetoric after a spike in anti-Semitic hate crimes it would be seen, rightly, as horribly irresponsible.

      1. Maybe because a dreidel is a religious object, and has nothing to do with the state of Israel. You’re an idiot.

        1. Kung fu has nothing to do with the state of China.

          1. Now do WuhanFlu

            Then do the “British variant”, and tell us about how you’ve attacked everyone uttering that for being anti-British bigots

            1. There’s not the same history of anti-British sentiment as I mentioned already.

              Think of it this way, if a virus came from Israel and we called it the Jewish State Flu that would be problematic in a way that if it came from France and we called it the French State Flu.

              1. You’re begging the question.

              2. If a brand new flu came from Israel, we’d call it the Israeli flu. Just like we call it the British / South African / Brazilian variant.

                The really sad part here is that China isn’t even pay you to babble this stupidity, and you’re still doing it.

                At least the news drones who push the “calling it China flu is racist” BS are doing it because they want business, which is to say money, in / from China.

                What’s your excuse for being stupid and dishonest?

          2. Kung fu has nothing to do with the state of China.

            The collection of martial art forms generally referred to under the umbrella term “Kung Fu” developed in the lands contained within the country of China.

            The dreidel, on the other hand, did not originate in Israel.

            You’re an idiot.

  6. This should be in the Museum of Whatabout-ism and Both Side-ism.

  7. The bigots have been roused . . . the only thing that might prevent use of a vile racial slur in this thread is a prediction from me that one of these bigots will indulge the inner racist and launch one.

    1. The bigots would be the people defending Harvard for deciding that all Asian people have really bad “personalities”.

      That would be your side, Rev

      1. Keep saying ‘Democrats are the real racists,’ Greg J. That will make it even easier for better Americans to keep shoving progress down your right-wing throats.

        1. Ah, so you’re another one of those anti-Asian bigots who believes that all Asians have bad personalities.

          Thank you for clearing that up

  8. By writing about Asians as a discrete ethnic group, Ilya Somin has just “discriminated” against Asians. Discriminate means to recognize a distinction between things, to differentiate.

    Of course, his discriminatory words and actions shouldn’t be conflated with “hate.” That goes for the good kind of hate and the bad kind. The good kind of course is hating hate. We all need to hate hate more. The most important issue facing the world today is that we need to have much more hate, so that we can finally hate hate enough, if only everyone could be open and understanding about this we could get there.

    1. It’s almost as if words have different meanings in different contexts…Derpity derp!

      1. Sure, words can have different meanings, or entirely new made-up meanings, or frequently no meaning at all! It just depends.

        Please provide the varying definitions of words that you believe are at issue here. Should be very easy but enlightening.

        1. If you don’t know that discriminate can mean simply to distinguish and also in different contexts to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people then I can’t help you.

          1. THAT is exactly the slight of hand that the left have engaged in to excuse their own racist behavior: To claim that discrimination is only bad if it’s bad discrimination. And since the left always credit their own motives as good, they can’t be guilty of bad discrimination.

            Ignoring that, in a zero sum world, it is impossible to discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others. So ‘good’ discrimination always is accompanied by ‘bad’ discrimination.

            1. Tips on racial issues from birthers: Always a delight!

            2. An unsuccessful attempt at sophistry, Brett, as if you never speak out of both sides of your mouth.
              Who told you that this is a zero sum world? (I’ll grant that the world of your imagination might be just that)

            3. You don’t get it Brett. I’m talking about the equivocation between two meanings of the word (see below). You’re rushing to condemn something that’s not at issue because you’re obviously very upset and obsessed with it.
              dis·crim·i·nate
              /dəˈskriməˌnāt/
              Learn to pronounce
              verb
              verb: discriminate; 3rd person present: discriminates; past tense: discriminated; past participle: discriminated; gerund or present participle: discriminating

              1.
              recognize a distinction; differentiate.
              “babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion”
              h
              Similar:
              differentiate

              distinguish
              draw/recognize a distinction
              tell the difference
              discern a difference
              separate
              tell apart

              perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
              “features that discriminate this species from other gastropods”

              2.
              make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, age, or disability.
              “existing employment policies discriminate against women”

              1. Citing dictionaries to settle these arguments lost its zing when the dictionaries started changing their definitions to track Democratic party positions.

                Here’s American Heritage’s take, though:

                “dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm′ə-nāshən)
                Share:
                n.
                1. The act of discriminating.
                2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
                3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.”

                Racial discrimination is just treating people differently depending on their race. Insertion of “unjust or prejudicial” is intended to immunize racial discrimination that is supposedly beneficent from being called “discrimination”.

                But the fact remains, you can’t discriminate in favor of one group, without discriminating against others. Do you care if a racist doesn’t dislike blacks, but instead just wants to advance the welfare of whites, and is indifferent to any damage to blacks that entails?

                If you swap “black” and “white”, and the policy goes from good to bad, or bad to good, you’re a racist.

          2. Exactly. So, in this case, the use of “discrimination” is just begging the question, by starting with a premise that presupposes the conclusion that something someone is doing is “unjustified” and “prejudicial.”

            It’s also a shifty rhetorical device that obfuscations the claim at issue. Keep in mind also, there is yet a third definition of “discriminate” which is to make a distinction or take some action that is actually illegal under current law.

    2. If the violence doesn’t discriminate, then opinions about it shouldn’t do so.

      People on the right trying to use the weapons on the left are always so bad at it.

  9. The increased number is 73 higher. In a country of 330, 000,000 people, in a time of great disruption and fear, where millions were thrown out of work and hundreds of thousands dead from a new disease of Chinese origin, there were 73 additional incidents nationwide.

    Try not to get too hyped up by dishonest propaganda.

    1. “increased number is 73 higher.”

      Its 150%, ben, 150%!!!!!

      The cities in the story’s are Biden voting cities, usually 80%+. So obviously its Trump’s fault.

  10. “Many on the left understandably blame Donald Trump’s and other right-wing politicians’ irresponsible rhetoric about the Coronavirus crisis, which often blurred the line between blaming the Chinese government (which does indeed deserve condemnation for its actions), and blaming Chinese people more generally.”

    With stupidity that gross, I’m certainly not going to waste any time on the rest of your article.

    I guess calling it the “British variant” is now a hate crime? Oh, the “South African variant”, now THAT’S racist!

    It’s the Chinese Coronavirus. It’s the Wuhan Flu (please, do explain how naming it after a city “blames” it on all Chinese people). It came from China, and the Chinese Communist Government is directly responsible for its spread throughout the world.

    It takes a fever pitch TDS to turn that into an attack on Chinese people.

    When are you going to try to fix your brain damage?

  11. When something happens and it fits into the left wing narrative, like white guy shoots up a place, then the situation is endemic of something that is systemic like “institutionalized racism”. But, if something does not fit neatly into that box, like people of color harassing Asian people, then these situations should not be representative of anything and is just “one off” and we are lectured not to “generalize”.

  12. Ah yes, how silly of folks to not equivocate between violent attacks and (checks notes) support for affirmative action.

    Yes, clearly the two are quite equal.

    1. the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron”

      1. Bad things don’t become good just because you approve of them, Sarcastro.

        1. Things don’t become bad just because you don’t like them, either.

  13. Many on the left understandably blame Donald Trump’s and other right-wing politicians’ irresponsible rhetoric about the Coronavirus crisis

    I know you’ve been nothing but a propagandist for many years now, but could you at least step up your game a little so you at least don’t come across as an inept one?

Please to post comments