Graphic by Lucas Olscamp/The Gazelle

Two weeks ago, Emily Wang wrote an article protesting the use of the term Asian Adorables on campus, arguing that adorable is a belittling word that has been used to specifically target Asians. She was right to point to the problematic use of the phrase Asian Adorables, but while the adjective adorable may serve the purpose of demeaning individuals or groups of individuals, the term itself is not the heart of the problem of the use of labels like Asian Adorables.

I take issue not with the word adorable but rather the semiotics of the phrase. The adjective-cum-pronoun model to describe an ethnic or national group suggests that every member, self-identified or imposed with that label, satisfies that description. Any Asian adjective phrase — Asian Criticals, Asian Powerfuls or Asian Wonderfuls, to illustrate — would not be improvements, although these adjectives might be complementary on their own. We can never guess how an individual will react to a certain word or action, even if it is meant to be flattering — “Headspace: A Play” in 2013 pointed to some female students’ indignation when males open the door for them while others felt it a necessary aspect of chivalry — but attributing a seemingly personal adjective to a person only due to her ethnicity or nationality robs her of individuality.

Wang writes about her reactions to a range of verbal aggressions she has experienced in cities around the globe, from white girls making her feel insignificant and small when they called her cute to white guys causing her to feel anger and fear when they hurled  xenophobic slurs at her. These anecdotes at best represent unfortunate consequences of misguided, albeit well-intended, compliments and, at worst, outright racial attacks. While horrific instances of contemporary racism, some of Wang’s examples gain their hurtful power from their problematic use of the word adorable, not necessarily rooted in the author’s ethnicity, while others represent general racial discrimination. The more hurtful examples stray from the problems of the label Asian Adorables to intentional and mean-spirited racial discrimination, which indeed may exist on campus — and if they do, should absolutely be addressed — but ones which Wang does not identify as problematic in her article.

The most prevalent forms of racial aggressions on campus, in my experience, are microaggressions rather than overt, malicious insults. This is a culture that may seem less innocuous but is pernicious nonetheless. At a university founded upon notions of multiculturalism, race and ethnicity are impossible and unhealthy to ignore, yet we have a responsibility to promote our differences in an ethical manner. Terms like Asian Adorables favor one group as inherently and arbitrarily different while steamrolling the individual difference of each member of the group.

The use of Asian Adorables in the Real AD Show was intentionally problematic. The term was meant to indicate nasty cliquishness and reductionism in the way the Mean Girls entourages were called The Plastics, Asian Nerds, Cool Asians, Unfriendly Black Hotties and Sexually Active Band Geeks. A Student Interest Group's use of the terminology was likely intended as a referential marketing strategy that failed to recognize the original context of the phrase, which was perhaps obscured by the scene's humor in the Real AD Show. SIGs based on ethnic, geographic, national, religious, gender and even dietary-based identities, SIGs dealing with -isms, have to pay extra attention to their terminology because their missions and activities must balance public, community-based programming and personal identity. At the risk of sounding dramatic, we are building our community’s culture with every word we utter or let others use. Let us be witty, critical, sensitive, ambitious, passionate, emotional, self-referential and even self-deferential in the right settings, but let us not be passive nor incognizant.