Author: Enrique Carrasco

IT’S OKAY

by Enrique R. Carrasco

Synopsis

The play explores the use of language, particularly the iterability of words, to ponder the meaning of words, in particular, “it’s okay,” as manifested in the dynamics between brother and sister, Juan and Alicia, as they confront mental health issues and Alicia’s suicide. What appears to be a pleasant meet-up turns into a moment of reckoning for Juan. By the end of the play, we realize Alicia is not there in body. But her spirit whispers to Juan, in iterable words, that “it’s okay.”

                                                                                           Copyright © 2023 by Enrique R. Carrasco             

THE CHARACTERS

JUAN                                        ALICIA’S brother, thirty-three years old

ALICIA                                      JUAN’S sister, thirty-years old

SETTING

Present day, a park, the fall season

For the monologue at the beginning and the ending segment, the stages is empty except for a chair that JUAN straddles facing the audience. Otherwise, JUAN and ALICIA are sitting on a park bench and move around as indicated. The stage should be strewn with autumn leaves. They are wearing autumn attire. ALICIA wears a white scarf that stands out from the rest of her clothing.

         Lights up.

JUAN

Words

We live by them

We live through them

Around them

In them

Words are me

They are you

They are they

They are us

(pause)

Words

They are the genius of our understanding

Our misunderstanding

Only because they are

They must be

They will always be

Iterable

They must mean different things

At different times

At different places

In different circumstances

I think of the word

Love

I love the blue sky

I love ice cream

I love you

But what about

It’s okay?

What about my sister

Alicia

     Fade to black.        

The bench is set on stage. ALICIA and JUAN are seated on the bench.

    Lights up.

(JUAN is eating out of a bag of donuts)

JUAN

Beautiful, isn’t it. Peaceful.

ALICIA

Yeah, it is.

JUAN

Almost has its own rhythm. The water, the waves. You know?

ALICIA

Peaceful in the morning. The grand Lake Michigan that connects us.

JUAN

What do you mean?

ALICIA

Our lives here in Chicago. Our lives in Grand Haven.

JUAN

Our roots in Quito. The peace of El Chimborazo on a clear morning.

ALICIA

Spectacular.

JUAN

Want some?

(offers a donut to ALICIA)

ALICIA

No thanks.

JUAN

You never eat.

ALICIA

I’m never hungry.

JUAN

Suit yourself.

(munches)

JUAN

Peaceful. What does that mean? You know? Really.

ALICIA

So many things, I guess. Lake Michigan absent a storm. Shimmering.

JUAN

How about no wars?

ALICIA

That’s an easy one. But it’ll never happen.

JUAN

You’re a pessimist. You always have been.

ALICIA

Sometimes. Depending on the day. If I’ve eaten a stale donut.

(JUAN looks at ALICIA and chuckles, he stands with bag in hand and moves away from ALICIA, still munching)

JUAN

Ok. Let’s try..uh…no hate. How about that?

ALICIA

Are you kidding me?

JUAN

What?

ALICIA

Get real.

JUAN

But why—

ALICIA

Why?

JUAN

Yes. I’m asking you what I think is a simple—

ALICIA

Because we’ve become hateful people. Seems like we thrive on it. The more, the better. And killing for it? That’s the sweetest hate possible.

(JUAN looks at ALICIA with concern)

JUAN

Wow.

ALICIA

You asked.

(pause)

JUAN

But we can still love. Right?

ALICIA

Only glimpses of it.

JUAN

More than glimpses. You know that.

(JUAN tosses the donut bag at ALICIA)

Catch!

(ALICIA, still seated, makes no attempt to catch it)

Uh…the idea is to put your hands somewhere in the vicinity of the flying object to catch it.

ALICIA

Maybe next time.

JUAN

(JUAN crouches looking at the ground using his finger to brush stuff)

Acceptance.

ALICIA

(ALICIA stands and moves to the opposite side of JUAN picking up leaves and letting them float to the ground, sometimes blowing on them like a wind)

How is that peaceful?

JUAN

For us. You. Me. Millions. We accept that we have it. It’s random. But we try to do something about it. Try to find peace. When our minds are just right. When the torment in our heads leaves us even if it’s not forever.

(pause)

ALICIA

Why us?

JUAN

(JUAN throws an imaginary stone as if to hit a target)

Why not us? Why Aunt Sandra? Why not Sandra? It’s random.

ALICIA

I wish you could just cut it out. A deft doctor with a scalpel. Better yet, let me do a do- over. Be born without it.

JUAN

What if you’re born with spina bifida? Spend your life in a wheelchair. It’s random.

ALICIA

You think everything is random.

JUAN

(JUAN picks up another stone and throws it)

Yes. Everything. You. Me. That oak tree. The lake. Even our conversation. We’ve gotten here, to this moment, through a series of random events.

ALICIA

You’re brutal, Juan.

(pause)

JUAN

(JUAN goes back to the bench)

The what if’s.

ALICIA

What?

JUAN

The what if’s. That mindset is useless.

ALICIA

Useless. What does that mean?

JUAN

It sets up an alternate reality that we’ll never reach or find. What if we could change one thing, just one thing, that would prevent catastrophe, stop the worst from happening. But we can’t. We’re left with anger, pain, despair.

ALICIA

(ALICIA returns to the bench facing JUAN)

It doesn’t need to be so dark, dear brother.

JUAN

Enlighten me, then, dear sister.

ALICIA

What if we could reach medical breakthroughs that would eliminate mental illness entirely?

JUAN

Now it’s my turn. Are you kidding me? It’s in the brain, Alicia. You’d have to lobotomize every newborn to do that. It’s a fact, a fact that you can’t change.

(pause)

Besides, there’s a new invention. It’s called medication. Have you heard of it? I think you have. Only you’ve been sticking your head in the sand.

ALICIA

(ALICIA turns away from JUAN)

Are we going to have this conversation, this debate, again?

JUAN

Yes. Yes, we are.

ALICIA

I don’t want it.

JUAN

It’s not about what you want. It’s what you need.

ALICIA

I don’t need drugs.

JUAN

Right, right. You’ll get addicted. Make you a zombie. Is that what I look like to you? Something out of the Walking Dead?

ALICIA

You want to do drugs, more power to ya. Do a commercial for pharma. Just leave me alone. I can handle myself. I don’t need your attention.

JUAN

Oh, really? You don’t need attention?

ALICIA

That’s right.

JUAN

That’s really rich. You’ve gotten all the attention in this family.

ALICIA

That’s not true.

JUAN

Alicia, if that’s not true, then why are we here?

ALICIA

(ALICIA turns to JUAN)

I don’t know, Juan. Why are we here?

JUAN

Because you need to stop. Stop selfishly looking for attention, as if you’re addicted to it. That’s your drug of choice.

ALICIA

That’s not fair.

JUAN

Oh, no? What about the family reunions. Remember? One moment, you’re, you’re—

ALICIA

Stop! Stop it!

JUAN

No. NO, I won’t stop. Yes, one grand moment you’re the life of the party, flitting around the room, laughing, dancing, twirling about. And the next, Alicia? Do you remember?

ALICIA

Shut the fuck up, Juan!

JUAN

(JUAN stands up abruptly, looking at ALICIA)

Fuck no! And the next moment you’re collapsed on your bed, never to be seen for the rest of the evening. Poor Alicia. Where did she go? Is she all right? Everything stops because we’re worried about our poor dear sister.

ALICIA

Go to hell.

JUAN

Yeah, hell. That’s what it’s been like to put up with you.

ALICIA

Then let me remind you what you did to us when you nearly jumped off that roof.

JUAN

Yeah, I was crazy. Full blown bipolar explosion. But I’m on meds now. I don’t need attention.

ALICIA

You did when you were in the hospital. Or don’t you remember that?

JUAN

I owned that. And I vowed never to go back. And I didn’t. Why? Because. I. Took. Medication. Medication, Alicia.

ALICIA

(ALICIA stands up abruptly, walks away from JUAN and then turns to him)

Will you fucking stop with your medication mantra? You talk as if pills would transform my life and give me a ticket to the kingdom of God.

(ALICIA looks up at the sky and puts her hands together as if praying)

Hail Mary full of Oxycontin!

JUAN

That’s different. No comparison. You know that.

ALICIA

Speaking of comparison, do you know why I don’t take your precious pills?

JUAN

Here we go.

ALICIA

The sibs always looked up to you. First in your class at Yale. Editor of the Harvard law review. Hot shot lawyer in a big law firm. And me? Your always-underperforming little sister. Middle of her class at Michigan State. Always in your shadow.

JUAN

Alicia—

ALICIA

I’m not finished. Do you really want to know why I would rather throw pills down the toilet? Because I want to show you, show our sibs, show the fucking world that Alicia Mendez can do something right. On my own! That I can get my act together, get my head straight without the almighty pills! That I can achieve something, Juan, achieve something on my own!

JUAN

At what price, huh? How many times in the psych ward?

(JUAN turns away from ALICIA)

And then the pandemic hit. One day you’re radiant. Absolutely beautiful. The next you’re a shell of yourself. Withered. Emaciated. Demons in your head. This time it was involuntary. We forced you into that hospital.

(ALICIA sits slowly on the ground, wrapping her arms around her knees, facing away from JUAN)

(significant long pause)

ALICIA

(softly)

Why didn’t you call me?

(long pause)

JUAN

(looking surprised, JUAN turns slowly towards ALICIA and says quietly)

What?

ALICIA

Why didn’t you call, Juan? Forgot my number? A number you’ve called a million times.

JUAN

Of course not.

ALICIA

I was waiting.

JUAN

I….I…

ALICIA

Waiting for you.

JUAN

Look, Alicia…

ALICIA

Why didn’t you call? I want to know.

JUAN

I…I was crazy busy. We were closing a huge deal. I hardly slept for weeks.

ALICIA

Oh, that’s right, the gifted lawyer climbing his way from associate to partner. The air must be pretty thin at the top of the legal mountain.

JUAN

You have no idea. The pressure I was under. You wouldn’t have a clue.

ALICIA

Oh, that’s right. How could I?

JUAN

(dismissively)

Stop. Just stop.

ALICIA

My brother. My dear pill-popping bipolar brother. Couldn’t find the time.

JUAN

That’s enough!

ALICIA

(ALICIA turns to JUAN sitting on her knees)

The one person who could understand me. Understand my world. Our world. Was I asking for too much attention?

JUAN

Why are we doing this?

ALICIA

You know why.

JUAN

You’re breaking the rules!

ALICIA

Rules are made to be broken, right counselor?

JUAN

(JUAN turns away from ALICIA)

Leave me alone!

ALICIA

(ALICIA stands and approaches JUAN little by little as they speak)

No, I won’t. It’s time.

JUAN

I don’t want to talk about this, dammit!

ALICIA

What if, Juan?

JUAN

I’m leaving.

ALICIA

You can’t. So I ask again, what if?

JUAN

Shut up!

ALICIA

What if you could change one thing…

JUAN

Please, Alicia!

ALICIA

Now is the time, Juan. Now you can’t stop it.

JUAN

Don’t!

ALICIA

What if you could change one thing, one thing that would prevent a catastrophe.

JUAN

You don’t have to do this!

ALICIA

Yes, I do.

JUAN

No, no, no, you don’t!  

ALICIA

(lovingly)

It’s time, Juan.

JUAN

No, it’s not!

ALICIA

(ALICIA is now stands closely behind JUAN and says lovingly)

You can’t run away from me. Not anymore.

JUAN

(JUAN turns toward ALICIA)

STOP! STOP!! PLEASE, ALICIA!! DON’T DO IT! PLEASE DON’T DO IT!

ALICIA

(lovingly)

Just one thing. If you could change just one thing, my dear brother. Say it.

JUAN

NO, I WON’T!

ALICIA

(lovingly)

Say it, Juan.

JUAN

OK! I SHOULD’VE CALLED! I SHOULD’VE CALLED!

(pause)

ALICIA

Why didn’t you call?

JUAN

BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID, OK?

(pause)

 Afraid. So afraid of that darkness. That black hole you were in.

(pause)

I didn’t…I couldn’t…I couldn’t go there. I just couldn’t.

ALICIA

I just wanted to talk to my brother.

JUAN

I didn’t know what to say, Alicia! I couldn’t find the words! I was mute! Frozen! Afraid! Afraid of you!

ALICIA

But it was a simple word. I just wanted to hear you say my name, speak it, into my world, dear brother.

(JUAN collapses to the ground, sobbing)

JUAN

I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. I should’ve called. Oh, God, I should have called, Alicia. I’m so sorry.

(very long pause, the lights begin to fade on ALICIA)

ALICIA

(ALICIA sits on her knees)

Love.

JUAN

What?

ALICIA

It’s a word. That signifies the bond between us. The bond we’ll always have. Always.

(long pause)

JUAN

I love you, Alicia. All of you, not the Alicia that could’ve been.

ALICIA

I love you, Juan. All of you. Who you are now.

(long pause)

(JUAN and ALICIA sit on the ground facing the audience)

Lights completely down on ALICIA

JUAN

Beautiful, isn’t it? Peaceful.

ALICIA

Yeah, it is.

       Fade to black.

      Lights fade up. JUAN faces the audience straddling a chair and ALICIA stands behind him and to the side. Lighting should suggest that ALICIA is there in spirit. She’s barefoot and wears a simple white dress.

JUAN

Words

They will always be iterable

What about, it’s okay?

We say

It’s okay, I suppose

It’s okay, it’s good to go

It’s okay to cross the street

But there’s more

Right?

Something deeper

Pervasive

Consuming

About it’s okay

When things

Bad things

Confront us

At any time

Anywhere

Suddenly, perhaps

Randomly, so often

Violently, at times

We then ask

What’s the point?

Words hurt me

Wound me

They stab me

Leave me dead to the world

(pause)

No words

No

Words

They disappear

Fade to nothing

Leaving only the wordless abyss

Then someone

Maybe someone you can’t see

But only feel

That someone 

Touches you

Says to you

In a whisper

ALICIA

(whispering)

It’s okay

JUAN

Wait.

What?

What did you say?

What are you saying?

What do you mean?

ALICIA

(whispering)

It’s okay

JUAN

How?

How?

How is it okay?

How can it be okay?

How?

ALICIA

(whispering)

It’s okay to feel the trauma of grief

It’s okay to feel the pain of letting go

It’s okay to fear the future without me

JUAN

But what then?

ALICIA

A promise

A promise, Juan, that it’s okay

That you will survive

A promise that there are better days to come

Better days

(pause)

Words, Juan

What you will speak tomorrow

Because you will be there

      Fade to black

THE END

MISS UNDERSTANDING

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Enrique R. Carrasco

CHARACTERS

MISS UNDERSTANDING:  An attorney arguing a case on appeal that was decided against her in the court below.

JUDGES 1, 2, and 3:  Judges on an appeals court.

MISS UNDERSTANDING is engaging in oral argument before three appeals court JUDGES 1, 2, and 3.  She uses her impressive advocacy skills to try to persuade the appellate court judges that the trial court mistakenly allowed “extrinsic evidence” (testimonial or documentary evidence other than the contract itself) to interpret the contract.

Lighting should highlight the actors only; the JUDGES should be elevated, looking down on MISS UNDERSTANDING.

Lights up.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

May it please the court, I represent–

JUDGE 1

What is your name, Miss?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Understanding.

JUDGE 2

Is that what you want?  Understanding?

JUDGE 3

You’ll have to earn it.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Your honor, my name—

JUDGE 1

Is your name yours and no one else’s?

JUDGE 2

But how can that be?

JUDGE 3

Can, say, John Smith, claim ownership of his name?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

That’s not the issue in this case.

JUDGE 1

But what is your name, Miss?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Understanding.

JUDGE 2

It will do you no good to beg here.

JUDGE 3

I should think not.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Respectfully, I’m not begging.

JUDGE 1

But isn’t that why you’re here?

JUDGE 2

You’re begging for our vote.

JUDGE 3

A majority opinion, at least.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I’m an advocate, not a beggar.

JUDGE 2

A tramp with a briefcase.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

That is offensive.

JUDGE 1

I think it is endearing, actually–a lawyer tramp with a gleaming briefcase.

JUDGE 2

So why are you here?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I have an argument.

JUDGE 3

You wish to bedazzle us with rhetoric.

JUDGE 1

Enchant us with gems of wisdom.

JUDGE 2

Speak from the mountaintop of truth.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Yes.

JUDGE 1

Proceed.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Thank you.  The question is whether the lower court properly admitted extrinsic evidence—

JUDGE 2

The extrinsic posits the existence of the intrinsic, yes?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

It would seem so.  However, that is not the question here.

JUDGE 3

The question is whether the dichotomy is real.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

The contract is real.

JUDGE 1

Is it?

JUDGE 2

Perhaps it is merely conceptual, an ephemeral idea beyond capture.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

The language in the contract is real.  It is plain.

JUDGE 3

You mean the piece of paper in the record called “contract?”

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE 1

But what is that paper beyond mere fibers of wood?

JUDGE 2

If I take that piece of paper and fold it correctly, does it not become a paper plane?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

It would if children were at play.  But the transaction at issue here is between adults with a serious purpose.

JUDGE 3

What are you saying?  Adults cannot make paper planes?  That is preposterous!

JUDGE 1

Outrageous!

JUDGE 2

An unconscionable proposition!  Do you not agree, counsel?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I would if we were prohibiting adults from making paper planes. Respectfully, however,

paper planes are irrelevant to this appeal.  

JUDGE 3

How do we determine what is relevant or irrelevant?

JUDGE 1

If a contract relates to the sale of gelatin, is pudding irrelevant?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Pudding would be irrelevant if the plain language of the contract referred to gelatin.

JUDGE 2

But don’t most puddings contain gelatin?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Honestly, your Honor, I don’t know.

JUDGE 3

You’ve come to this court unprepared?

JUDGE 1

She has no clue!

JUDGE 2

Shockingly ignorant!

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I am not ignorant. I did come prepared to discuss the issue in this case but not to discuss the idiosyncrasies of paper planes, gelatin or pudding.

JUDGE 1

What do you mean by “idiosyncrasies?”

JUDGE 2

Are you suggesting we are idiosyncratic?

JUDGE 3

Abnormal in some way?

JUDGE 1

Aberrations?

JUDGE 2

Anomalies?

JUDGE 3

Are you saying we are peculiar?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

No, your Honor, I am not saying you are peculiar. What is peculiar is the extrinsic evidence in this case. It cannot be admitted.

JUDGE 1

Is that the test you are asking us to apply, whether the extrinsic evidence is peculiar?

JUDGE 2

Peculiar can mean odd.

JUDGE 3

Freakish.

JUDGE 1

Or strange. Is that what you mean, the extrinsic evidence is strange?

(long pause)

                              MISS UNDERSTANDING (becomes increasingly desperate)

Yes, your Honor, it is strange. So strange that you must not allow it to be admitted. It has no basis in reality.  It is devoid of meaning.  It makes a mockery of what is true, right and good.  It leads to desperation, plunges us into darkness so deep that our lives lose meaning.  We lose the ability to think, to feel, to love.  We are reduced to flesh without souls, flesh that decays and reeks of rot.  There is nothing but rot.  Putrid rot infested with maggots…..

              (very long pause)

JUDGE 1

What is your name, Miss?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Understanding.

JUDGE 2

Is that what you want? Understanding?

MISS UNDERSTANDING

Desperately, your Honor.

JUDGE 3

Your time is up, counsel.

MISS UNDERSTANDING

I know.

THE END

International Finance: Debut

To most people, international finance is an arcane topic, something most of us don’t think about. When asked about it, we might say it’s something that occurs on Wall Street by elite investment banks such as Goldman Sachs or what you read about in the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times. We might also venture that it’s something taught at the Harvard Business School and at some law schools. But most of us, if prodded by the question, would throw up our hands and say international finance is a topic that occurs somewhere in the financial stratosphere, the province of international banks and other financial institutions, not people. But that’s just not true. Like any narrative, international finance is created and inhabited by people.

For that reason, as a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law, I made it my mission to explain international finance in plain English so that lay persons could understand it and how it might affect them. In the late 1990’s, I created the E-Book on International Finance & Development, a groundbreaking work that used the internet, which at the time had just developed the World Wide Web, to explain to a global audience the Asian financial crisis and other topics in the field. At about the same time, I established the University of Iowa Center for International Finance & Development, where I worked with fantastic students to expand upon my mission.

All of my work culminated in 2015, when I published a textbook titled, Fundamentals of International Finance: What You Need to Know. It was unique in that I used my skills as a playwright to explain the subject matter. I’ve been writing plays for some time, almost all in the genre of the short play, fifteen to twenty minutes in length. In 2002, my play, Soccer Moms, was selected for the Annual Festival of One-Act Plays at Theatre Three in New York. While I was at the College of Law, I produced a number of plays based on cases in my Contracts class. So in the textbook, I wove in vignettes to explain things in each chapter.

Now I want to reach non-students who might be interested in the narrative of international finance as presented in the textbook by using my blog to post just the vignettes along with some very limited explanatory prose. The narrative will begin with a profound event at the close of World War II. But to give you a taste of what’s to come, I’m going to jump ahead to give you a vignette relating to the financial crisis that shook the world beginning in 2008. It’s based on a story I read in the paper about how the crisis, which began in the United States, affected a community in Wingecarribee Shire, Australia. I used the vignette to explain the role of credit rating agencies in the crisis. It’s a story about how the CRA’s failed to fulfill their role as the “gatekeepers,” that is, conveying to the investing public the risks of holding highly complex securities. When I use quotation marks in the vignettes it signifies actual statements taken from the original sources.

I hope you enjoy it. If you don’t…well…there’s always Netflix,

“The Gatekeeper’s Reckoning”

Setting: 1:00 a.m., law office, New York, present day

Characters

David: lawyer

William: janitor

(lights up)

William: May I empty your trash, sir?

David: Sure. Thanks. Let me get out of the way.

(David stands up and William empties the trash can, noticing many empty cans of energy drinks; David catches William looking at the cans)

David: I know. Ridiculous. They fill the whole trash can.

William: To each his own, sir.

David: I live here. Catch a cat nap now and then.

William: A twenty-four hour operation, isn’t it, sir.

David: We’re global. Time zones keep us busy.

William: It would seem we’re all connected, sir.

David: You bet. And you can drop the “sir.” Call me David.

(William returns the trash can to its spot and faces David; David sits, William doesn’t move)

William: Okay. David.

David: There we go.

(William turns to leave)

David: Wait. How about you?

William: Me?

David: Your name, sir!

William: Smith.

David: No, I mean your first name.

William: William.

David: Can I call you Bill?

William: I prefer William, if you don’t mind.

David: Not at all. William it is.

(pause)

David: You’re new here, aren’t you?

William: My first week, sir.

David: David.

William: Yes, David.

(David pulls a bottle of 18-year-old scotch and two tumblers from his desk drawer)

William: Quite nice.

David: Have some with me, to celebrate your first week.

William: Thank you, but no.

David: C’mon, William. You’re almost done, right? I can use a break before I call Singapore. Sit down and have a bit, just a bit. We can talk. It’s important for me to know the staff.

William: Why is that?

David: It’s in my best interest, William. I have the cleanest carpet of all the offices on the floor.

(pause)

David: That was a joke, William.

William: You’re quite the comedian.

David: David.

William: David.

(David pours some scotch)

David: Let’s press restart. William, how nice of you to stop by. Please have a seat. You have a moment, don’t you?

William: But your work—

David: Will always be there. Sit, please. You look thirsty. How about a bottle of primo spring water? Got some in the little fridge here.

(Williams sits upright in an office chair facing David, David unscrews the bottle cap and hands William the water)

William: Thank you . . . David.

David: No problem.

(William holds the bottle on his lap, doesn’t drink; David puts his stocking feet on his desk, takes a drink of scotch)

David: Are you Australian, William?

William: Yes, I am. My accent—

David: I know it well.

William: How so?

David: Scuba diving. Heron Bommie.

William: The Great Barrier Reef.

David: Spectacular. Spent a week there just last June.

William: First time?

David: Been there about a dozen times. How about you?

William: A bit beyond my budget. Quite a ways from my town in any event.

David: Where’s that?

William: Burrawang. In Wingecarribee Shire.

(David takes a long pull, all the while looking at William, long pause)

David: Wingecarribee Shire. I’ve heard of it. About two hours from Sydney, yeah?

William: Indeed.

David: Beautiful place . . . I’ve been told.

William: Quite. Eucalyptus trees, roos, koalas, wallabies . . .

David: Why did you leave such an idyllic place for the craziness of New York?

William: I lost my church.

David: Your church?

William: Yes, my church. Not very big, but good congregants. I was the pastor. I lost it in 2008. My church.

(David takes another long pull and pours more scotch)

David: Sorry.

William: For what?

David: Your loss. Your church.

(William stares at David)

David: Drink, William. It’s good water, don’t you think?

(William doesn’t drink)

William: What do you do, if you don’t mind my asking?

David: Not at all, William. I’m a corporate lawyer.

William: What do corporate lawyers do?

David: Lots of stuff. I do finance. Everything from project finance to Eurobonds.

William: Bonds?

David: Yes. Sort of international bonds.

William: Sounds complex. You must have considerable expertise.

David: I would like to think so, William.

William: How have you come about it?

David: Degrees in business and law. Then lots of hard work.

William: Here? I mean, you’ve become an expert in finance here?

(David takes a pull)

David: I was at a credit agency before I came here.

William: Credit agency. What is that?

David: They’re private companies that rate the creditworthiness of companies or countries that issue debt securities, like bonds.

William: Creditworthiness?

David: Their ability or willingness to pay a debt.

William: This is quite interesting. May I ask you about these agencies? Could you spare a few moments?

David: Of course. I told you I needed a break.

(David takes a drink)

David: You haven’t touched your water, William.

(William takes a sip of water)

David: What you want to know?

William: How many of these agencies are there?

David: There’re two U.S. firms that dominate the market, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s. Fitch Ratings, a British firm, has a slice of the market but not as big. Then you got a bunch of little fish.

William: So if I understand correctly, these firms issue ratings so people know how profitable these . . . securities, debt securities will be.

David: Not quite. Credit agencies aren’t like investment analysts that make recommendations on whether to buy, sell or hold a security. Their ratings are useful because they’re a standard way to figure out whether it’s worth lending to a company or government and at what price—you know, the interest rate on a bond.

William: I see. They’re sort of gatekeepers, aren’t they?

David: Precisely, William.

William: They tell the world if a security is gold or trash?

(David takes his feet off the desk)

David: That’s a colorful way of putting it.

William: What’s the gold rating? The best gold?

David: Triple A.

William: And the trash?

David: If you use Moody’s ratings, anything below BBB loses its “investment grade” status and become speculative. Sometimes it’s called junk.

William: Trash.

David: Sure. Trash.

William: Such a range. How do they do it?

David: They look at a bunch of data ranging from the issuer’s financial position to the quality of management.

William: Data. It seems that it’s at the heart of the ratings. How do they collect it?

(David starts putting his shoes on)

David (looking at his shoes): Good questions, William. Typically there’s a team of raters with a lead analyst.

William: Were you a lead analyst, David?

(David stops tying his shoes and looks at William)

David: Yes.

William: Hmmm . . . What did you do?

David: I coordinated the gathering and analysis of the data. Then presented it to the rating committee. It decides what rating the debtor or the financial instrument will receive.

William: Who pays for all of this?

(David finishes tying his shoes and stands up)

David: The issuer, William.

William: Are you saying that the very firm that has asked you to rate its securities is paying you?

David: Yes. The issuer pays the credit rating agency.

(William, still sitting upright, takes a sip of water)

William: You said you were a lead analyst. When? Perhaps 2008?

David: William, this has been a great conversation, but I have to start preparing for my call to Singapore.

William: May I finish my water, David?

David: Sure.

(William takes a sip of water)

David: Why don’t you chug it.

William: You didn’t answer my question.

David: What question was that?

William: Were you an analyst in 2008?

David: Yes, I was.

William: So you were turning trash into gold, weren’t you? Taking subprime mortgages and turning them into mortgage-backed securities with triple A slices. The same with collateralized debt obligations.

David: You seem to know a lot about finance for a janitor.

William: I’ve had a number of years to read books. After all, David. I lost my church.

David: I said I was sorry, pastor. Build a new one. I’ll make a sizeable donation.

(William takes a sip)

William: Have a seat, David.

David: Thank you, but no.

William: “Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.” Does that sound familiar? Was it in an email you sent to an analyst on your team?

(David walks to the office door and tries to open it and can’t)

William: Please, have a seat, David.

David: Open this door!

William: You and the others rated thousands of these securities worth trillions of dollars on paper without really knowing what you were doing. You conspired with your clients to maximize profits by making sure you could create securities with big slices of gold. Gold that was actually trash. But why would you care, David? You and your clients were making money hand over fist. You sold your soul to the devil. All for revenue.

(David reaches in his pocket for his cell phone)

William: Are you looking for this?

(William stands up and raises his hand holding David’s cell phone)

William: Don’t even bother with your office phone.

David: Look, Mr. Pastor-turned-wacked-out janitor, everybody had a hand in it—borrowers, mortgage brokers, investment banks, just to name of few. And let’s not forget about the investors, they blindly bought the stuff. They looked at the ratings as if we were making investment recommendations. We weren’t. And they should’ve known that. Everybody was having a party, including the investors, including Wingecarribee Shire. And what about the ultimate gatekeepers, the regulators? Why don’t you creep them out?

William: There wouldn’t have been a party without the gold, and you helped create it, David. The party came to an end in 2007, didn’t it? The housing market collapsed. Then all of you downgraded billions of dollars of these securities. The gold was downgraded to junk. Within a year, nearly $2 trillion securities were downgraded.

David: What do you want from me?

William: You haven’t asked me, David. Aren’t you curious?

David: Asked you what?

(William approaches David, standing close to him)

William: Why I lost my church. My lovely church in Burrawang.

(David rushes to the wall and starts pounding)

William: There’s no one here, David. Unusual, isn’t it.

David: Let me out of here, please!

William: My church along with others in the township of Wingecarribee Shire invested in the securities. The gold slices. I was hoping to build a children’s wing for my church. Many families in my church. Then the gold turned into trash. Into trash, David! We lost everything! Everything, David!

(pause)

William: My families left. I preached to a nearly empty church.

(pause)

William: I lost my church, David. It was torn down . . . God abandoned me. Abandoned Wingecarribee Shire.

(long pause)

David: If I could take it all back—

William: You all were the gatekeepers . . .

(William goes to his cart and pulls out a hammer and slowly approaches David)

David: What are you doing?

William: Those securities weren’t trash, really. No, that’s not the right word, David.

David: Please put that down.

William: They were a deadly virus.

David: I left the agency. I couldn’t stay there.

William: You could’ve contained the virus. But you did the opposite. And the virus went global, all the way to Wingecarribee Shire.

(long pause)

David: I’m truly sorry, William. Please don’t hurt me.

William: Do you pray, David?

(David starts trembling)

David: I used to.

William: I as well. I want to pray again.

(pause)

David: You can build another church . . . in Burrawang.

William: Why do you think I’m here?

David: I’m sorry? What?

(William raises the hammer)

William: Are you good with a hammer, David?

(fade to black)

Wheelchair + Tennis = Life #19 On Making Sense of the World

To say you’re going to lose your way of life is to say you’re going to lose what helps you make sense of the world. Think about it. “My way.” The “my” is the individual who uses his or her agency to construct a method, an algorithm of sorts, to make it from morning to night and achieve something. If I do this, this, and that, I’ll achieve what I want. If I (1) get up, (2) take a shower and get dressed, (3) eat breakfast to give me energy for the day, (4) take the bus to school, and (5) go to classes and pay attention, I’ll achieve the goal of learning something.

There’s also the “way” of “my way.” That’s everything else that helps the individual execute the algorithm. You need a home in which to sleep well, someone to produce the food for you and get it to your plate, a public or private mode of transportation, a school and teachers.

So when you say you’re going to lose your way of life, at least looking at it positively (a way of life can be destructive), you stand to lose everything that helps you become a  human being, that helps you conceptualize a life  worth living, that helps you see beauty in life. It’s crazy scary, the kind of scary that sucks the air out of your lungs in an instant, that makes your heart skip a beat or two. You fear. You freeze. Your sense of agency disappears. What are you going to do, especially if you’re a kid?

Especially if you’re a kid like Nick with his severe physical limitations? To really get how scary it is, you have to get “granular,” you have to break down in much more detail each part of the algorithm. I’m a quad like Nick but I don’t come close to having his limitations. Earlier in the book, I described a component of my algorithm, getting dressed. I free fall into a chair. Then comes the underwear (sorry, yeah, TMI). Then the pants. Then my socks, which alone takes up to five minutes. Then strapping on each leg brace. Then putting my footwear over the brace. Then putting my shirt on and using what’s called a “buttoner” to button my shirt. Then standing to pull everything up and finishing that part of the algorithm. This could take up to twenty-five minutes or maybe more. And if I stand up and realize I put on my underwear backwards? Start over. I feel really stupid when that happens.

Now can you imagine how much harder it is for Nick, a guy who can’t touch his feet with his hands? How incredibly granular each part of his algorithm is? In Nick’s case, it was his dad that took every opportunity to push his son towards as much independence as possible, to help Nick construct his “way of life.” One of Nick’s vivid memories, one that he has shared with many people, was when as a kid, about four or five years old, he woke up one summer morning excited that he would get to swim later in the day. He called his dad into the bedroom.

“Are you ready for a swim, Nicholas?”

“Heck, yeah, dad!”

“Alright, then.” His dad tossed Nick’s swim suit at him, walked out of the room, and closed the door.

“What? Dad! . . .Dad!” No answer.

Nick laid there, not knowing what to do. He cried. He screamed. The door remained closed. Nick eventually realized that if he wanted to go swimming, he would have to put on the swim suit himself.  He wrestled and wiggled for what seemed an eternity. He eventually got it on.

“Dad! I got it on!” Nick shouted triumphantly. His dad walked in, extremely proud of his son but intent on not making the situation a big deal.

“Okay, then, let’s go.”

My.

Way.

Of.

Life.

On Being A Female Law Student—and Puerto Rican #7 “We’re not chump change!”

This next excerpt from Kristymarie’s article looks at the concept of meritocracy as it applies to students of color. What she writes about is familiar to me based on my experience in academia.

When persons of color began to make a concerted effort to diversify law school faculties in the late 1980s, we got pretty severe blowback. Back then faculties were virtually all comprised of white males. They invoked meritocracy and argued that we weren’t qualified to become teachers and scholars. Relying on affirmative action to diversify would lead to mediocrity.

This was a crazy stupid argument put together to protect the positions of mediocre white guys who felt threatened by people of color. We had awesome credentials. But that wasn’t good enough. No, we had to be supermen and superwomen. Actually, women of color had to be super-duper. We had to wear capes to our interviews. Mine was fire engine red with cute little rhinestones and…yeah.

We persisted, though. Professor Michael Olivas, for example, created the “dirty dozen list,” which called out elite law schools for not having any persons of color on their faculty. Little by little, we made our way onto faculties around the country. Once there, we still had to prove that we were super teachers and scholars. Never mind that much of the white guys’ teaching was uninspired and their scholarship about as profound as a TV Guide.

Still, we persisted. And little by little, academia came to know that teachers and scholars of color rock. We bring stuff to the classrooms that, because of our backgrounds, transforms dry presentations of doctrine into fascinating explorations of subtext underlying black letter law. Our scholarship brings critical perspectives and commentary that were unimaginable before we made our inroads into faculties.

Put simply, we’re kickass. And we don’t wear capes anymore. At least not in public.

Let’s see what Kristymarie says about all of this in the context of law students of color. You’ll see that she says, “we are not chump change.” Yeah, you all are mucho dope. Reminder: I’ve stripped out the footnotes to make the excerpt more readable.

“While the legal community thinks of its diversity as a priority, it continues to create a hostile environment for diverse individuals. The hostility is not brazen—it is subtle. Micro. And one of its most effective weapons is the myth of meritocracy.

The myth of meritocracy is the illusion that democratic choice and the freedom of confident action are available to all. This myth rests on two inaccurate assumptions: that the opportunities are equally available, and that any differences in achievement are due to the racialized and gendered candidate’s unique choices. Peggy McIntosh exposes the myth of meritocracy as perpetuating white privilege, which often gives whites “license to be ignorant, oblivious, arrogant and destructive.” That ignorance allows stakeholders in law school career-development to believe that different outcomes are caused by differences in talent and work ethic, and ignore the role of—and their role in—the oppressive environment…

[A] racialized candidate is simultaneously highly visible and highly invisible. It creates a need for the racialized candidate to make himself or herself known for markers other than his or her race. Raising awareness about this consistent struggle—whether to move towards or away from identity expression—is crucial for the non-racialized candidate, the law school faculty and staff, and the law firm recruiter.

Furthermore, these stakeholders should be aware of how trying to fight these generalized preconceived notions affects the racialized candidates. Specifically, the non-racialized candidates should care because, one day, they will be the cross-interviewers or the law school faculty. For their part, law faculty and staff can no longer afford the luxury of ignoring the subtleties of the racialized candidate’s experience because their ignorance perpetuates the oppressive environment. When the legal recruiter speaks of equal opportunity in the job market and meritocracy, he perpetuates white privilege and must be aware of this. Your license to be ignorant has been revoked.

Using buzzwords like “white privilege” and “ignorance” may cause some to tune out the message. But consider this: out of a class of 152, only nine were Latinos/Latinas. One of them was a corporate lawyer in another country before starting law school here. Another has won campus-wide awards, was Editor-in-Chief of a journal, and went on to clerk for a state court of appeals. A third one won a writing competition, and was on a journal board and a moot court team. Another was also on a journal board, won a public defender fellowship in a coveted district, and is now an associate at Chapman & Cutler. Another is an associate at Dorsey & Whitney, part of a tax bracket he has never been acquainted with. These are just some examples from these nine individuals being some of the most invested and successful law candidates available. These racialized candidates struggle between visibility and invisibility, which usually leads to anxiety, teeters between validation and covering. The mere presence of that anxiety validates the idea of the meritocracy, and creates a burden on the racialized candidate to prove himself or herself worthy.

As I just did there.

Because it has become second nature to highlight that we are worthy.

That we are not chump change.

But what is the real kicker is that the meritocracy argument disregards that each and every one of those students had to be above average and Latino/Latina to get into Iowa Law. When a stakeholder speaks of meritocracy, he seems to disregard the fifty percent of the law school class that is below average and, more often than not, white. When he speaks of equal opportunity in terms of the colorblind evaluation of résumés, he ignores that a racialized candidate has had to overcome a variety of obstacles a non-racialized candidate would not even consider just to achieve the same résumé content. This is how equal opportunity and meritocracy perpetuate white privilege. This is why awareness of the consistent slights the racialized and gendered candidates face matters.

An important step in creating a more productive environment for racialized and gendered candidates is to recognize the implicit bias that may affect interactions with racialized and gendered candidates, as well as the stereotype threat, which may hinder the racialized and gendered candidates’ performance. Implicit bias encompasses the unconscious ways in which one allows attitudes or stereotypes to affect our understanding, actions, and decisions. Stereotype threat is the situational predicament in which the racialized candidate debates whether to cover or reverse cover, fearing the risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their social group. Educators and interviewers may overcome these implicit biases and pattern preferences by establishing a rapport with the candidate before assessing their competence. Building rapport first may help curb the influence of cultural biases.

Similarly, cultural, gender, and/or racial sensitivity training may build upon the awareness stepping stone. Many educators or hiring professionals fail to understand the communication nuances that isolate racialized and/or gendered candidates. When a racialized candidate is referred to as “articulate” or when a gendered candidate is referred to as “ambitious,” the implication is that the candidate breaks through the stereotype of racialized candidates having poor dominion of the language and women being conformists. Dismissive statements about a married person’s unmarried name, comments about the candidate’s hair or appearance, or expectations about their involvement and the causes that are important to them equally reflect these racialized or gendered expectations. The educator or the interviewer may not think twice about his or her vocabulary, or his or her commentary. At the same time, the educator or interviewer may be isolating the candidate. Cultural, gender, and/or racial sensitivity training may provide an opportunity to replace the problematic behavior, and provide these individuals skills aimed at lessening that isolation.

Another more lofty potential solution is to provide more role models, which would require an overhaul of the education pipeline. Part of the isolation that results from stereotype threat is the idea that one is left by one’s self to be the representative of one’s race. Your identity and individuality are stripped, only to be replaced by the burden of being the definition of the group you represent. These are the instances where reaching critical mass lessens the burden on the few, allowing representation to become a duty once again: a task we undertake proudly, rather than something we have no choice but to shoulder.”

Having said all this, I’m sure Kristymarie would agree with me that our law school, the University of Iowa College of Law, is a special place where faculty and staff try hard in many cases to make the law school a supportive community. And many of the faculty members are awesome teachers and scholars. The school is legendary for its highly skilled teachers. And I wouldn’t have become the scholar that I am today without colleagues who went out of their way to constructively critique my work. And help me keep my cape clean for the homecoming parade.