By Jamie Cho
Jamie Cho
Sitting closely around the conference table at Seattle’s Chinese Information Service Center, volunteers, advocates, and pro-bono lawyers surround Zhen Jin as she awaits her to turn to be heard by the Superior Court via Zoom.
Anxiety on her face, she is worn down, disappointed and depressed. She has waited months for this hearing to request a permanent protection order. There have been two continuances (reschedules) already and, after waiting two plus hours in this conference room for her case to be heard, the judge has ordered a third continuance. Jin will have to wait three more weeks, and take another day off from work, for what she hopes will be a meaningful resolution.
Jin, who is a survivor in this case, bears the unbelievable and overwhelming burden of re-living through repeat testimony the many different ways she has been victimized over three years. She has already been to court for over 10 hearings and another 10 plus times to get help. Her volunteer lawyers, multiple government agencies, and the media have interviewed or asked to interview her, and each time she must relive her trauma.
Not only does she bear this hardship in the legal system, she also must carry the weight of having been victimized by an entity that should have protected her, her homeowners association. The inequities in the legal system have a parallel universe in her condo complex because the person wielding the power within the homeowners association is the racist neighbor who is making her life miserable in-person, in the courts, and in the association that had a fiduciary duty to her. What kind of justice can prevail when the victim has to prove to the aggressor that they are being harmed?
Jin, who has limited English, has done her best to communicate and advocate for herself, which often includes using Google Translate, and relying on her friends to write and respond to emails. However, her need for interpretation or translation services and her request to have friends communicate on her behalf is often denied or ignored. This pattern speaks to racist microaggressions that re-traumatize and further isolate folks for whom English is not their first language.
In multiple court hearings, the racist neighbor interrupts the interpretation. “She doesn’t need interpretation.” It is Jin’s right to request interpretation to be able to understand the nuances and legal jargon that is used in court. The refusal to allow someone to access support to be able to more fully engage in the legal process and the sense of entitlement that one can interrupt a court proceeding to try to deny someone else’s right and need are racist. The interruption and focus on herself take time away from Jin. Not only is the racist neighbor using her privilege to deny Jin’s full access but she is also wielding her power to suggest that Jin is gaming the system by requesting interpretation. Those who are racist fear losing any advantage that they perceive they have and feel entitled to deny others access when it is already an uneven playing field. Systems are already in favor of those who are native and fluent English speakers. To say that someone doesn’t need what they DO need is an active attempt to marginalize the other person and implies that those using interpretation are somehow taking unfair advantage when in fact, they are at a disadvantage even with interpretation. Despite the presence of an interpreter, people forget to pause for interpretation and are constantly speaking for too long before giving the interpreter a moment to do their job. Also, interpreters make judgments about how much to say or explain, thus one who needs interpretation is at the mercy of the interpreter who is only human and therefore fallible. It is a privilege to not have to think about needing an interpreter, and it is racist to deny that someone needs one.
Furthermore, in our current inequitable systems, it is a vulnerability to admit that one might not have the full repertoire of the English language. Lack of fluency can be erroneously conflated with lack of intelligence, immigration status, or laziness. Given the negative connotation of being an English language learner, asking for help is a courageous act, especially in a public forum.
In condo matters, Jin has also sought help from her friends to support her communication with the HOA board and the management company. Despite repeated emails and phone calls, water damage from a leak that took over two years to repair and her requests for management to enforce condo rules have been met with active resistance and defensiveness. This is a pattern that illustrates the power her racist neighbor has over the board members, the management company they employ, and also over other residents of the condominium.
Whitney Lynne, who has been responding and writing emails on Jin’s behalf to request repairs and enforcement of rules, has been told by the management company manager, “I will not be responding to Whitney Lynne. We have never had any issue communicating [with Jin].” Again, this denial that Jin needs and deserves communication support is racist. It undermines Jin’s ability to advocate for herself and puts her at an enormous disadvantage with others who have a strong command of English. Furthermore, using this excuse, the manager has avoided all responsibility in dealing with issues that arise, choosing to ignore the emails that are sent by Whitney Lynne. This management company’s racist violence has far exceeded the harm done by the court system. He and his company have supported and amplified the racist neighbors’ behavior and chosen to not only condone racist behavior but engage in their own. Their negligence is racially motivated because the racist neighbors’ needs are being served whereas Jin’s are not, and decisions are made with extreme bias.
When the management company was notified of the protection orders two of eight units had secured against the racist neighbor, the management company considered that information irrelevant. When Jin notified the management company that the president was flipping the bird to another homeowner, abusing her authority as a director and officer, the management company responded that it was allowed and not offensive activity because the racist neighbor had a dog with her. When informed that racial slurs were leveled against two Asian homeowners by the president, that was considered a “neighborly dispute”. When unconscious racial bias was raised as a concern, the management company refused to communicate any further because it would “not tolerate” being accused of racism.
“I can understand her just fine.” This one small phrase repeated by many bad actors has ripple effects on the trauma that is experienced by people of color for whom English is not their first language. The aftermath of being judged within an inequitable and unjust system is that the overwhelming burden of proving one’s innocence is compounded by repeated insinuations and comments that asking for fairness is too much. One person should not be required to survive this ongoing maltreatment and discrimination. And a community, made up of individuals who have a conscience and moral compass, should not be silent or cowering or thinking only of themselves when such oppression is happening. We should not say, “I don’t want to get involved” or that “It’s a private dispute”. We should feel enraged and offended that anti-Asian hate is brewing in our neighborhood. We should be steadfast in our commitments to liberation, justice, empathy and kindness. We should all feel empowered to take action and feel responsibility to protect survivors like Jin and our community as a whole.
Jamie Cho, Ph.D. is an Assistant Teaching Professor of Justice in Early Learning at the University of Washington.
If the statements in this article are true and can be verified then the author or the paper should print the names of the neighbor and the HOA board and the management.
Why racists be so upset about being called racist?
How can the HOA president be allowed to continue in her role despite her clear abuse of power? She now has the opportunity to rally other homeowners to her side, which could result in intensified pressure and even greater harassment. The extended delay in achieving justice, coupled with ongoing harassment, is deeply concerning. Racism remains unaddressed, leaving Jin increasingly vulnerable to those who wish to avoid facing consequences for their actions.
Comb through every word in the homeowner’s agreement. Look for the loopholes and conflicts. Homeowner’s association are often run by entitled bullies who use it to create their own fiefdom.
Someone may have enough basic knowledge of a language for generic or casual conversations but not the much deeper and higher level of language competency for legal, medical or business transactions. It is racial ignorance to not know the difference but racial discrimination to manipulate it against someone.
Jin should not rely on translation or AI programs. Those are not always accurate even for casual conversations.
The HOA should not be communicating with a third party who does not have legal authority to speak or act on the homeowner’s behalf. But that was not their reason for refusing to communicate with Whitney Lynne. They recognized that Whitney had the language competency and abilities that Jin did not. Jin could get a limited power of attorney (for housing matters) assigned to Whitney and an attorney to legally communicate on Jin’s behalf.
The neighbor cannot randomly interrupt the court proceedings even if pro se. The judge should have immediately stopped the interruptions and mis-representations. If the neighbor has evidence to present, there is a time for that.
Jin has the right to a court-approved interpreter. It is not the neighbor’s place to dictate someone else’s need. The defense will try to weaponize Jin’s need for an interpreter by speaking very fast or overlapping each other like interrupting.
Did Jin’s attorneys formally ask the court to periodically pause for the interpreter? Jin’s attorneys could also take it upon themselves to create deliberate pauses so the interpreter catches up. Creating these obvious delays also reminds the court of this need. This could entice the neighbor to continue to interrupt which also goes onto the court record.
The interpreter also has the obligation to ask the court to pause so they can catch up or if they missed something. The court record will include each time the interpreter requests to catch up or for someone to repeat themselves.
Jin’s attorney needs to formally object every time the neighbor interrupts, attempts to manipulate the court or tries to mis-represent Jin’s needs. Then each formal objection requires a formal ruling from the judge which becomes a part of the official court record. Judges do not want court records that show they have no control of their courtroom or where they are obviously biased.
Since we have to play in their racist games, use all their rules and biases that benefit us whenever and wherever we can. And document it when they are used against us.
(this is an opinion and not legal advice)