Since New York Knicks player Jeremy Lin took the world by storm, there has been no shortage of Lin puns to describe the 23-year-old media sensation.
And with Linsanity at a fever pitch, it sadly was only a matter of time before stereotypes crept into the coverage of the Harvard grad-turned-point guard, who hails from California and is of Taiwanese descent.
On Friday, after the Knicks lost to the New Orleans Hornets, ESPN posted a story on its mobile website with the headline, “Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin’s 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-Snapping Loss to Hornets.”
The backlash was fast and furious.
Within a half-hour, the headline was taken off the site, and the blogosphere (and Twitter) lit up with chatter of the racist slur.
On Sunday, ESPN fired Anthony Federico, the editor who penned the offensive headline.

Federico has since told the Daily News that the headline was an “honest mistake.”
“This had nothing to do with being cute or punny,” he said. “I’m so sorry that I offended people. I’m so sorry if I offended Jeremy.”

It’s hard to believe that Federico didn’t realize the implications of the headline. Even if we were to take him at his word, racist stereotypes were certainly at play. After all, Federico himself said he didn’t think much of the headline, since he had used the turn-of- phrase “at least 100 times” during his short-lived career.
To add injury to insult, it was the second time this week that someone associated with ESPN used the term “chink” in connection with Lin.
Also on Friday, after the Knicks’ winning streak took a hit, sports reporter Max Bretos asked, “If there is a chink in the armor, where can Lin improve his game?” (Bretos, who has been suspended for 30 days took to Twitter to apologize, saying he didn’t mean to refer to race. “My wife is Asian, would never intentionally say anything to disrespect her and that community,” he tweeted).
In addition to axing Federico, ESPN issued an apology in an attempt to appease fans, who are rightly outraged at the network’s racist coverage of Lin.
“We are conducting a complete review of our cross-platform editorial procedures and are determining appropriate disciplinary action to ensure this does not happen again. We regret and apologize for this mistake,” the statement said.

HISTORY OF SLURS

I’d like to think that ESPN has learned its lesson. But the truth is the network has a history of stereotyping players of ethnic descent.
Last year, the network had to eat crow after one of its anchors dubbed a loss by the Oklahoma Sooners a “trail of tears.” The term historically refers to the forced (and deadly) relocation of a group of Native American tribes.
And in 2009, an anchor asked if a Hispanic racecar driver was “out having a taco” when he didn’t make the list of top five NASCAR drivers
Meanwhile, Lin, in an interview before the uproar, told Reuters
that he wanted to shatter stereotypes about Asians-Americans’
ability to play pro basketball.

After the ESPN headline, Lin told reporters that he didn’t think Federico meant his headline to be offensive.

“There are definitely stereotypes, obviously,” Lin said. “The more we can do to break those down by the day, the better we’ll become. Hopefully in the near future we’ll see a lot more Asians and Asian-Americans playing basketball in the NBA.”

“Have to learn to forgive, and I don’t even think that was intentional,” he said, according to a piece in the Los Angeles Times. “Or hopefully not,” he added.

Lin handled this slur like he has handled his basketball opposition recently: with finesses and grace. The slur was clearly intentional and ESPN did the right thing by firing Federico.

In December, normally jaded New Yorkers were rattled when news of the gruesome elevator accident that killed Suzanne Hart was splashed all over the tabloids.

Hart, a 41-year-old advertising executive at Young and Rubican, was headed to work on Dec. 14 when she stepped into an elevator at the firm’s headquarters at 285 Madison Avenue. Before she could get inside, the elevator suddenly shot upward, trapping Hart between the car and lobby wall.

Two passengers could only look on in horror as Hart was crushed to death.

It’s not clear what caused the accident.

But it wasn’t the first time there had been problems with the elevators at 285 Madison.

In fact, just hours before the accident, workers from maintenance company Transel Elevator had performed electrical work on the elevator which crushed Hart. And while the elevator in question was only cited for a technical violation, the New York Times reported that 14 outstanding violations had been written in connection with the building’s 13 elevators.

The New York Post went so far as to say that problems with the elevators at the building were “an epidemic.” Following the tragedy, inspectors wrote 11 new violations for elevators at the building, the Post reported.

And on Jan. 24, an city official said maintenance work in progress right before Hart’s death was “likely a contributing cause, or the cause, of the accident.”

According to the New York Post, Transel faces at least eight lawsuits, including a man who fell down an elevator shaft in 2007. Hart’s family hasn’t sued yet, but the accident highlights the uphill battle families face when trying to sue a wrongdoer for the death of a loved one.

In New York, individuals can sue to recover damages for the ‘wrongful death” of a family member.  When the state’s “wrongful death statute” was passed in 1847, it was the first of its kind in the U.S. But more than 150 years later, the once revolutionary law hasn’t caught up with the times.

Here’s why.

When a loved one brings a wrongful death case, recovery is limited to monetary loss  — for example, funeral expenses and the financial support the family member would have provided if he or she had lived.  This calculation might be relatively straightforward when a working parent dies. But when a young child dies, it’s tough, if not impossible, to figure out how much money he or she would have provided to a parent over a lifetime. New York law requires a family who just lost a child to do this though.

Cases involving the elderly, single adults without children, and the disabled are equally challenging. New York law says their value is only measured by what they contribute financially.

How do you put a price on the financial contribution a single woman like Hart would have made to her family?

Conversely,  wrongful death actions don’t allow family members to recover for their grief. Grief is a family’s most significant loss but is specifically excluded as an element of recovery.  This results in families, after suffering the loss of a beloved family member, being subject to the second indignity of learning that their loved ones may be worthless in the eyes of the law.

The wrongful death statute might have been ahead of its time more than a hundred years ago. But New York is long overdue for a law that recognizes the value of all members of our society.

If you agree, speak up. Get in touch with your local lawmakers. Contact the Governor. http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php.

And tell him enough is enough. It’s time we had a law that not only compensates families for the pain and suffering they endure after the tragic loss of a loved one, but treats members of our society equally, regardless of their earning power.

Shortly after I launched this blog in 2010, I wrote about the case of the immigration lawyer who missed deadline after deadline until she was finally disbarred by a New York court. And a former Manhattan judge who was put behind bars for filing bogus green card applications.

Last year, I told the tale of an immigration attorney who was suspended after shutting down his New York office and moving to Beijing without telling clients.

Well, every profession has its bad apples.

But when it comes to immigration lawyers, we’re talking about more than the occasional rotten apple.

According to a recent report published in the Cardozo Law Review, New York immigration judges said that one-third of the attorneys who represented immigrants facing removal from this country were inadequate. Fourteen percent were ranked as “grossly inadequate” by the judges.

It wasn’t just that attorneys were poorly prepared. Nearly half had inadequate or grossly inadequate knowledge of the law or facts of the case.

You can find the report Here

And hiring a private lawyer was far from a guarantee of adequate representation. In fact, the private bar got way lower marks than providers who offered free (pro bono) representation, law schools clinics and nonprofits.

“These findings are particularly alarming because minimally adequate representation is essential to the fundamental fairness of removal proceedings, particularly since it affects a class of people that is likely to be unfamiliar with the law, the procedures, and the evidentiary rules,” says the December 2010 report.

And the report notes that the consequences of poor lawyering in removal cases can be “devastating.” Even “irreversible.

Why?

Because inadequate representation in the initial stages of a removal case can lead to a range of bad outcomes, including triggering time bars creating incomplete records for appeal and in some cases even losing the right to appeal.

Robert Katzmann, a federal judge in Manhattan and a leading advocate of immigration reform, told the New York Times, which first reported the study, that part of the problem is that immigrants — who often face language barriers and don’t understand the court system — are “easy prey for ambulance-chasing-style lawyers who do not adhere to the highest standards of responsibility.” Check out the full NYT article Here

Unfortunately, the study also found that a large number of immigrants in civil proceedings simply lack representation. The Times reported that between October 2005 and July 2010, 27 percent of immigrants who appeared in immigration court didn’t have a lawyer. That number rose to 67 percent for detained immigrants.

So what can you do to protect yourself?

If you’re looking for a lawyer and don’t know where to turn, there are groups out there that can help.

Here’s a list of some places to call:

The New York City Bar Justice Center’s Legal Hotline at 212-626-7383;

The Legal Aid Society’s Immigration Law Hotline at 212-577-3456;

The Catholic Charities Community Immigration Services Department at 212-419-3700; and

Human Rights First, 212-845-5200

And remember, when you find an attorney, you are the client and have certain basic rights.

As I mentioned in my November 2010 blog post “Buyer Beware,” you are entitled to a lawyer who keeps your confidences, updates you on the status of your case, treats you with respect, includes you in the decision-making process, and charges you a reasonable fee.

If you are not comfortable with your lawyer, you have the right to walk away (you might have to pay for the work the attorney has done up to that point, but don’t let that stop you from speaking up).

And remember, if you think a lawyer has acted unethically, you can report them to an attorney disciplinary committee (for more information, see my April, 12, 2011 post, “Into Thin Air-When an attorney disappears”). If you think you’ve been the victim of a scam or fraud, you can contact the Manhattan District Attorney’s Immigrant Affairs Program Complaint Hotline at 212- 335-3600.

The bottom line is that just because you are new to this country or don’t understand the language or the court system doesn’t mean that you should have to settle for less than adequate representation.