« Mindfulness, Law Day and the Politeness Police. | Main | Writing and publishing: What about crowdsourcing? »

May 02, 2015

An apology to Jeena Cho.

Yesterday, I wrote a post (here) criticizing a lawyer, Jeena Cho, who writes about and promotes the ideas of civility, emotional intelligence, self-awareness and "mindfulness” for lawyers. My criticisms and attempts to make them humorous or satirical are not important in this post. What's important now is that I acknowledge that I made a real mistake in the way I commented to one of her articles. Well, "fuck-up" is the right term here.

Also yesterday, Ms. Cho had published at Above The Law (ATL) an article, "Happy Law Day! Can We Bring Civility Into Law?." As usual at ATL, the piece was quickly followed by comments of ATL readers. Regular readers at ATL will recognize a commenter who posts and comments as Partner Emeritus. He's a retired "Big Law" lawyer, curmudgeon and gadfly at ATL who regularly lambasts writers and their ideas at ATL.

He does this through satire, usually in the snob faux persona of a New England Brahmin, and sometimes makes comments of a sexist or racist variety. I think of him as an Ivy League-version of Archie Bunker, Borat or Ali G. He's over-the-top irreverent, and makes light of discrimination and unfairness through a colorful but flawed persona. He made a comment suggesting that Jeena might be better off working as a massage therapist and, further drawing on this Asian stereotype, and asked for her services when she was next in New York City.

After I made my own critical comment about the article, I seized on the massage therapist comment, saying it was "most on point". This was intended to be ironic--how could massage therapy have anything to do with lawyer civility and "mindfulness"?--and to add to the humor. I later referenced both of my comments in my blog post and quoted the critical one.

I had thought my intention was clear: to add to the absurdity and funniness of the massage therapist stereotype. I tried to mix criticism and humor fairly. But I've re-read it and, I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise. A fair reading of what I wrote would lead the reader to believe that I meant to state, or imply, that Jeena’s ideas are in some way less relevant or important due to her race or her gender. I may disagree with her ideas--and I do--but I think that the way I ended my piece was insensitive and, frankly, stupid.

What I wrote? It comes from a place from where I can't immediately identify with Jeena's reality. She posted an excellent take-down of yours truly here. I'm a baby boomer, and a bit of a curmudgeon, but there's still room for me to learn. Her post put things in a different light--one that helped put my mistake in perspective. In the future, I will do better. Jeena might have ideas that I disagree with, but I can respect at least one thing about her philosophy. And, to be sure, she had the opportunity to really take a broadside at me over this. She didn't. She taught instead. That tells me a lot about her.

I screwed up.

I respectfully apologize to Jeena, and to everyone else.

Posted by JD Hull at May 2, 2015 04:48 PM

Comments

The apology is thoughtful, but insincere. Why not just admit the obvious - you were endorsing an Asian stereotype and a sexist characterization, and leave it at that? You'd get more respect for simply owning up to it, frankly.

Also, even if your lengthy sort-of apology is sincere, it doesn't make you any less of a cunt.

Best,

Andrew Fine

Posted by: Andrew Fine at May 2, 2015 07:50 PM

You're not sorry you agreed with that idiot bonehead of a comedy hack, PE. You're sorry you got caught. It's too bad you weren't sorry before Jeena took you to school. Timing is all.

Posted by: Summer at May 3, 2015 12:23 AM

Thanks, Andrew, for commenting and using your real name. Appreciated. Sorry if we see and understand things differently.

Posted by: Dan Hull at May 3, 2015 11:22 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?