a and F

The Abercrombie lawsuit was news to me, but was not surprising at all. I found the shirt offensive and felt as though that the hiring lawsuit from the minorities was justified. In class I felt that the consensuses was that everything was justified in terms of what Abercrombie had to do to change and conform to the new age thinking of the modern discrimination. Though from a personal standpoint I do agree with what Abercrombie had to do in order to appease the lawsuits, I now have begun to think that in some way, Abercrombie had done nothing wrong. That in fact, what they did was only a reflection of their constitutional right to the freedom of speech and expression.

There is no doubt in my mind that the shirt was offensive to the Asian American community. But beyond the fact that it was obviously discriminatory, was it really all that wrong. There are various racial slurs and stereotypes presented in movies and television programs that are directly insult Asians. However the stress is not put on those, it is forced on Abercrombie. Yes many argue that it is on a different platform and therefore would have a different affect, but in all actuality is it really that different? Is the offensive shirt all that different from other slurs that we may here on a comedy special? Though I do not believe that the shirt should be printed, I don’t know that it should have been taken off from a freedom of expression perspective. As for the hiring habits, id it wrong that they wanted to promote a certain image? Abercrombie wanted people to buy their image, and that is of attractive white people. I don’t agree with it, but I also don’t know that they are not within their rights to hire whoever they want for whatever postion. This is a tricky subject and I suppose that this post would be a good one to comment on for those that are having trouble this week.

Omar Mir