i mailed the paper copies of the following to the U.S. President
and the Department of Justice (see Appendix).
i also sent a copy by e-mail to .

;;; I've been distributing the following article on computer networks
;;; called USENET and internet.  I think 300--2000 people have read the
;;; article on the network.

====================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american   soc.culture.usa
	    soc.culture.japan            soc.culture.china
	    misc.legal                   alt.discrimination
Followup-To: soc.culture.asian.american
Date:    Sat, 06 Aug 94 18:59:53 GMT	(minor modifications 1994 11/10)
From:    tanaka@indiana.edu (TANAKA Tomoyuki)
Subject: Who killed Vincent Chin?


Contents:
    (1) How Vincent Chin was killed by Ronald Ebens and Michael Nitz
    (2) How American law decided on the killing
    (3) Discussion (comparison with the Rodney King case)
    (4) "Who killed Vincent Chin?"
    (5) What we should do: write to 
    Appendix: letter to the President and the Department of Justice
    References

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) How Vincent Chin was killed by Ronald Ebens and Michael Nitz

;;; The following account is quoted directly from the booklet,
;;; "Asian Pacific Americans" (see References at the end).
;;; my notes are in parentheses.

The incident that has come to symbolize this problem (anti-Asian
violence) was the 1982 beating death in Detroit of Vincent Chin,
a Chinese-American.  Ronald Ebens, who repeatedly beat Chin on
the head with a baseball bat, was an auto plant supervisor.
	(at the time Vincent Chin was a 27-year old engineer.
	Ebens was a Chrysler foreman.  Michael Nitz (Ebens's
	stepson) was a laid-off Chrysler assembly-line worker.
	Ebens and Nitz are both white.)

Witnesses testified that Ebens had assailed Chin with racial
epithets and blamed those "like him" for the unemployment of
American auto workers.
	(more details:  one June night in 1982, two days before
	his wedding, Vincent Chin went out to a bar with two (?)
	friends of his.  Chin and Ebens&Nitz met in the bar as
	strangers.  according to the witnesses, Ebens first
	started harassing Chin by saying (among other things)
	"It's because of you (little) motherfuckers that we are
	out of work."  Among Chin's replies were "I'm not a
	boy." and "Don't call me a fucker.  I'm not a little
	motherfucker."  it may have been Chin who first
	physically hit Ebens.  A fistfight ensued between Chin
	and Ebens&Nitz.  Chin and his friend left the bar.
	Ebens and Nitz drove around for 20 minutes looking for
	Chin.  after finding Chin, Nitz held Chin down while
	Ebens repeatedly hit Chin on the head with a baseball
	bat.  Ebens was in a baseball team, and the blows were
	strong.  Chin was taken to a hospital and soon fell into
	a brain-dead state.  He lived in that state for 4 days.
	(some more details available in my archive (WWW) site.
	do "finger tanaka@silver.ucs.indiana.edu" for access information.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) How American law decided on the killing

In 1983, a Wayne County judge convicted Ebens and his stepson,
Michael Nitz, of manslaughter, and sentenced them to fines and
probation.
	(... the state judge who sentenced both defendants to
	three years' probation and a $3000 fine explains
	that all Mr Ebens and Mr Nitz intended to do was
	"administer a punishment" to Mr Chin.  "Had it been a
	brutal murder," Judge Charles Kaufman adds, "of course
	these guys would be in jail." [NY Times 1989])

the Asian Pacific American community --- outraged by the slack
punishment --- sought the prosecution of the two on federal
charges on violating Chin's civil rights.  The U.S. Department
of Justice filed the charges against Ebens and Nitz.

In 1984, Ebens was convicted on one account and sentenced to 25
years in prison; Nitz was acquitted.

	(Ebens was sentenced to 25 years in jail and was told
	to undergo treatment for alcoholism, but he was freed
	after posting a $20,000 bond.  ...
	Neither he nor his stepson ever spent a day in jail.
	[Chan 1991, Page 178])

But the conviction was overturned and a retrial ordered.
	(because of a legal technicality)

In 1987, a jury in Cincinnati cleared Ebens, saying that Chin's
killing was not racially motivated.

	(Later that year a civil suit against Ebens was settled
	by a court-approved agreement whereby Ebens agreed to
	pay, over time, $1.5 million to Chin's estate.
					[Daniels 1988, Page 342]
	But the former worker, Ronald Ebens, 47 years old, does
	not have a steady job and the chance that he will ever
	pay the maximum amount seems extremely unlikely.
					[NY Times 1987]
	This settlement seems to be little known; all the other
	sources i looked at didn't mention it.)

	(the last time Ebens (or Chin) appears in a newspaper is
	in 1987.  so i'm pretty sure nothing significant
	happened after that, except, perhaps, that Mrs Lily Chin
	(Vincent Chin's mother) has moved back to Canton
	Province, China since then [NY Times 1989].  i wonder
	what i'd do if a close friend or relative of mine is
	brutally killed and the killers get away with never
	spending a day in jail.)

;;; END of quotation from the booklet, "Asian Pacific Americans"

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Discussion (comparison with the Rodney King case)

i'm somewhat at a loss as to what to make of all this.  one
consideration is that the American legal system seems to be very
uneven (sloppy).  on one hand, you can get fines and probation
for a brutal killing; on the one hand, you can get life in
prison with no possibility of parole for dealing marijuana once
("The Atlantic Monthly", cover story, August 1994).

the final decision on the case by the American law (which is to
give Ebens and Nitz three years' probation and a $3000 fine for
killing Vincent Chin) seems unjust to me, but it is not a result
of carelessness.  the case received enough attention, and it was
handled over many years (it was not done in haste).  even before
the Cincinnati jury's decision came out in 1987, Department of
Justice issued a statement that it does not plan to appeal if
the jury comes out with a "not guilty" decision.  afterwards
there was no storm of protest sweeping across the country
either.  these things seem to imply that this decision is a
pretty accurate description of how America (American conscience)
feels about the case.

comparison with the Rodney King beating case is striking.
there is a close parallel:  the first decision, protest by the
people, federal indictment involving civil rights violation, the
final federal-level decision.  there is, of course, one
important difference.  in the end two of the policemen in the
Rodney King case were convicted; Ebens and Nitz were cleared.
as far as i can tell the key factor that caused this difference
is the difference in how persuasive the two methods of protest
were.  i'm not advocating a riot.  what we must do is a peaceful
show of disapproval as eloquent as a riot --- but perhaps this
is near-impossible in the present-day USA, where force has
generally prevailed over reason and justice in its internal and
foreign policies.

to me all of this also underlines the malleability (flexibility)
of what constitutes "justice".  it is never a clear-cut abstract
matter, but a function of inter-related factors such as what
most people believe is acceptable or reasonable at the moment,
and what people have the most politically power in the country.
200 (?) years ago it was perfectly acceptable for George
Washington to own black slaves.  40 years ago it was perfectly
acceptable to have segregated hotels, toilets, and drinking
fountains.  today it is near-perfectly acceptable for American
law to have different standards of justice based on skin color
and monetary damages that expected protest would cause.
(see Leslie Abramson, "Unequal justice, opinion: racism and
sexism infect our courtrooms, too", Newsweek, July 25, 1994.)

that's fair.  things have gotten much better than before.
hopefully things are getting better now, and we are in that
process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) "Who killed Vincent Chin?"

Tajima and Choy named their film "Who killed Vincent Chin?".
i'm not sure exactly what they intended by that title.  this is
what the title means for me.  on the surface, there is no
question who killed Vincent Chin; it's Ebens (and Nitz).
however, everyone who helped anti-Asian (or anti-Japanese)
feelings in this country are to be blamed also.  American law's
treatment of the case will encourage such anti-Asian violence in
the future.  sources say that anti-Asian violence is on the
rise.  if i don't do anything to oppose this trend, when the
next Vincent Chin is killed, i will be morally responsible for
it too.
	(footnote: The title "Who killed Vincent Chin?" also
	reminds me of two songs by Pete Seeger from the 60s or
	70s.
	1. "Who killed Davey Moore? (i'm not sure about the name
	    of the boxer.)  How come he died and what the reason
	    for?  'Not I', said the ...  'It was fate.  It was
	    destiny.  You can't blame me at all.' ..."
	2. "Last train to Nuremberg, ... Come on board.
	    Where is the President?    Where are the members of
	    Congress?  Where are the voters, you and me? ...")

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) What we should do

i don't have any definitive answers about what we should do.
but this much i know:  now i know what happened, i can't just
keep silent --- that would be a sign of giving consent and
approval.

writing this article to let others know what happened is one
thing i could do.  we (Asian or non-Asian) must not forget
Vincent Chin and the legacy of the Chin case:  in the second
similar case (in 1989 Jim (Ming Hai) Loo, a Chinese American,
was killed because he was allegedly mistaken for Vietnamese)
lessons learned from the Chin case brought better justice.
[Chan 1991] [Espiritu 1992]

i will soon send a copy of this article (by e-mail and paper
mail) to the U.S. President, the U.S.  Department of Justice,
and other appropriate organizations (see Appendix).

if you support this type of action, you can show your support by
sending a message to the U.S. President by e-mail at
.  please put the words "Vincent Chin"
in the subject line, and state clearly that you oppose the final
decision on the case by the American legal system, which is to
give Ebens and Nitz three years' probation and a $3000 fine
for killing Vincent Chin.  it would take only a few minutes.
(if possible, please send me a copy of the message.)

there may be a number of reasons why you wouldn't do this.
--- one reason may be that you don't believe the authenticity of
    the account that i have presented.  if this is the case,
    please go to the sources i have listed.  The New York Times
    article (1989) is probably only available in microfilm,
    which is kind of troublesome to look up.  if you like, i'll
    mail you a photocopy of the article.
--- another reason may be that you're generally politically
    inactive person.  I won't blame you.  i was like that
    until i was in my mid 20s.  schools don't teach us how
    we have come to possess the rights and freedoms that we
    enjoy today.  none of it we got for free; they were not
    given to us.  every bit of it had to be demanded, fought
    for, and won --- almost always at the expense of many
    lives.  and the most important thing is that we are in the
    middle of such a process today.

if you have other ideas about what we should be doing, please
let me know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: letter to the President and the Department of Justice

	5 August 1994

	Mr. President (Mr. Bill Clinton)
	1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
	Washington, DC 20500

	Ms. Janet Reno, Attorney General
	Department of Justice
	Tenth Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
	Washington, DC 20530


	Dear Mr. President and Ms. Reno,

	This summer I learned of the Vincent Chin killing case
	of 1982(--1987) and was deeply disturbed by it.

	What I learned about the case is summarized in the
	enclosed article I have been distributing on internet.
	I think somewhere between 200 and 2000 people will read
	this article on the internet.

	Because of the $1.5 million settlement as a result of a
	civil suit, one can say that some justice has been served.

	Indeed, before the killing, Ronald Ebens was an able
	worker and a productive member of the society.  Provided
	that he will not commit a similar crime again, I would
	rather have him outside of prison, trying to pay back to
	Chin's family for the crime he committed.  That is much
	better than to have him confined in jail for decades and
	thus become a burden to taxpayers.

	Still, I am concerned about the enormous symbolic
	significance of the final federal-level decision, which
	is to give Ebens and Nitz three years' probation and a
	$3000 fine for the brutal killing of Vincent Chin.

	The $1.5 million settlement is little known, and what
	the American public (and the rest of the world) received
	was the clear message that American Justice does
	discriminate based on skin color, which made Vincent
	Chin's mother leave the USA for China.

	Racism is not just a vestige of the past, but it is at
	the heart of American Justice at the federal level ---
	is this the kind of message that you want peoples of the
	world to receive as representative of the USA in the
	1990s and the coming decades?

	If not, I ask you to consider reopening the case, issuing
	a public statement, ..., whatever is necessary to send
	out a different message to the world, and also to be
	more careful in the future cases.

	Thank you very much for your attention.

	Sincerely,


	;;; (Mr.) TANAKA Tomoyuki   (Tanaka is my family name.)
	;;;
	;;; mailing address:    TANAKA Tomoyuki
	;;;                     Eigenmann Hall 393
	;;;                     Bloomington, IN 47406, USA
	;;;
	;;; e-mail address: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
References:

    [booklet, "Asian Pacific Americans" 1988 (?)]
	"Asian Pacific Americans: A handbook on how to cover and
	portray our nation's fastest growing minority group."
	a booklet of about 80 pages.  distributed by The
	National Conference of Christians and Jews in Los
	Angeles, CA.  i checked with the distributor of the
	booklet and they said they have no more copies left.

    [film, "Who Killed Vincent Chin?" 1988]
	produced and directed by Renee Tajima and Christine Choy.
	84 minutes.  a documentary film consisting of interviews
	of various people involved: Ebens, Nitz, Chin's mother,
	the witnesses, ... just about everyone except Chin.
	i think you can find this film in many public libraries.

    [Chan 1991]
	Sucheng Chan.
	Asian Americans: an interpretive history.
	Twayne Publishers.

    [Daniels 1988]
	Roger Daniels.
	Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States
	since 1850.  University of Washington Press.

    [Espiritu 1992]
	Yen Le Espiritu.
	Asian American Panethnicity.  Temple University Press.

    [NY Times 1987]
	The New York Times (no author given).
	"$1.5 million in wrongful death".
	Saturday, August 1, 1987.

    [NY Times 1989]
	The New York Times (by David A. Kaplan).
	"Film about a fatal beating examines a community".
	Sunday, July 16, 1989 (Page H27(L)).


(there is an excellent article which explores the social aspects
of internet in TIME (July 25, 1994; cover story).)

(If you post an article in response, please send me a copy too.)

;;; (Mr.) TANAKA Tomoyuki   (Tanaka is my family name.)
;;;
;;; mailing address:    TANAKA Tomoyuki
;;;                     Eigenmann Hall 393
;;;                     Bloomington, IN 47406, USA
;;;
;;; Tanaka's archive site: http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~tanaka
;;;
;;; e-mail address: