2015 NJSBA Annual Meeting Special Interest Track Racial & Ethnic Identities in America-Myths, Facts and the Power of Illusion Co-Sponsored by the Diversity Committee and the Supreme Court Committee on Minority Concerns **8:30-11:30 Introduction: Hon. Hany A. Mawla, J.S.C., Somerset Speaker: Professor Khyati Y. Joshi, Associate Professor of Education Fairleigh Dickenson University

NEW JERSEY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 2015 ANNUAL MEETING

Course Title

RACIAL IDENTITIES IN AMERICA:

MYTH VERSUS REALITY AND THE POWER OF AN ILLUSION

Faculty

Dr. Khyati Y. Joshi

Associate Professor, School of Education, University College, Fairleigh Dickinson University

SELECTED REFERENCES

Adams, M., & Joshi, K.Y. (2007). Religious Oppression. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell

& P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A

Sourcebook (pp. 255-284). New York: Routledge.

Bell, Lee Ann , Joshi, Khyati Y., & Zuniga, Ximena. (2007). Globalization,

Immigration and Racism. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.),

Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (2nd ed., pp. 145-166). New

York: Routledge.

Echo-Hawk, Walter R. (2010). In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10 Worst

Indian Law Cases Ever Decided: Fulcrum.

Esposito, John L., & Kal*n, Ibrahim. (2011). Islamophobia : The Challenge of

Pluralism in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gotanda, Neil. (2011). The Racialization of Islam in American Law. The Annals of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 637(1), 184-195.

Gualtieri, Sarah. (2004). Strange Fruit? Syrian Immigrants, Extralegal Violence

and Racial Formation in the Jim Crow South. Arab Studies Quarterly,

26(3).

Jacobson, Robin, & Wadsworth, Nancy. Faith and Race in American Political

Life.

Joshi, Khyati Y. (2006). The Racialization of Religion in the United States. Equity

and Excellence in Education, 39(3), 211-226.

Lipsitz, George. (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White

People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lopez, Ian Haney. (2006). White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (2nd

ed.). New York: New York University Press.

McIntosh, Peggy. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-racist,

Multicultural Education and Staff Development (pp. 79-82). Wellesley:

Network of Educators on the Americas.

Ngai, Mae M. (2004). Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of

Modern America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Omi, Michael, & Winant, Howard. (2015). Racial Formation in the United States:

From the 1960s to the 1990s (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Takao Ozawa v. U S, 260 U.S. 178 (1922).

Prentiss, Craig R. (2003). Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity: An

Introduction. New York: New York University.

Roediger, David R. (2002). Colored White: Transcending the Racial Past.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Singh, Jaideep. (2003). The Racialization of Minoritized Religious Identity:

Constructing Sacred Sites at the Intersection of White and Christian

Supremacy. In J. N. Iwamura & P. Spickard (Eds.), Revealing the Sacred in

Asian and Pacific America (pp. 87-106). New York: Routledge.

Singh, Jaideep. (2013). A New American Apartheid: Racialized, Religious

Minorities in the post-9/11 era. Sikh Formations (ahead-of-print), 1-30.

Snow, Jennifer (2004). The Civilization of White Men: The Race of the Hindu in

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind In H. Goldschmidt & E. McAlister

(Eds.), Race, Nation, and Religion in the Americas (pp. 259-281). New

York: Oxford University Press.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923).

New Jersey Bar Association Race in America: Past, Present & Future

Dr. Khyati Y. Joshi May 14, 2015

SELECTED REFERENCES

Adams, M., & Joshi, K.Y. (2007). Religious Oppression. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 255-284). New York: Routledge

Bell, Lee Ann , Joshi, Khyati Y., & Zuniga, Ximena. (2007). Globalization, Immigration and Racism. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (2nd ed., pp. 145-166). New York: Routledge.

Echo-Hawk, Walter R. (2010). In the courts of the conqueror: the 10 worst Indian law cases ever decided: Fulcrum Pub.

Esposito, John L., & Kal*n, Ibrahim. (2011). Islamophobia : the challenge of pluralism in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gotanda, Neil. (2011). The Racialization of Islam in American Law. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 637(1), 184-195.

Gualtieri, Sarah. (2004). Strange Fruit? Syrian Immigrants, Extralegal Violence and Racial Formation in the Jim Crow South. Arab Studies Quarterly, 26(3).

Jacobson, Robin, & Wadsworth, Nancy. Faith and Race in American Political Life.

Joshi, Khyati Y. (2006). The racialization of religion in the United States Equity and Excellence in Education, 39(3), 211-226.

Lipsitz, George. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness : how white people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lopez, Ian Haney. (2006). White by law: The legal construction of Race (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.

McIntosh, Peggy. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack Beyond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K-12 anti-racist, multicultural education and staff development (pp. 79-82). Wellesley: Network of Educators on the Americas.

Ngai, Mae M. (2004). Impossible subjects : illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Omi, Michael, & Winant, Howard. (2015). Racial formation in the United States : from the 1960s to the 1990s (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Takao Ozawa v. U S, 260 U.S. 178 (1922)

Prentiss, Craig R. (2003). Religion and the creation of race and ethnicity : an introduction. New York: New York University.

Roediger, David R. (2002). Colored White : transcending the racial past. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Singh, Jaideep. (2003). The racialization of minoritized religious identity: Constructing sacred sites at the intersection of white and Christian supremacy. In J. N. Iwamura & P. Spickard (Eds.), Revealing the Sacred in Asian and Pacific America (pp. 87-106). New York: Routledge.

Singh, Jaideep. (2013). A New American Apartheid: Racialized, religious minorities in the post-9/11 era. Sikh Formations(ahead-of-print), 1-30.

Snow, Jennifer (2004). The Civilization of White Men: The race of the Hindu in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind In H. Goldschmidt & E. McAlister (Eds.), Race, Nation, and Religion in the Americas (pp. 259-281). New York: Oxford University Press.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923)

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=261&invol=204[4/30/2015 12:20:21 PM]

FindLaw Career Center

Search for Law Jobs:

AttorneyCorporate CounselParalegalJudicial ClerkInvestment Banker

Post a Job | View More Jobs

Need a New Take on the Nine?

Read FindLaw’s Supreme Court Blog now!

blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court

Got Gadgets?

Get the latest on legal tech on FindLaw’s

Technologist blog.

blogs.findlaw.com/technologist

FindLaw’s on Facebook!

View enhanced case on WestlawKeyCite this case on Westlaw http://laws.findlaw.com/us/261/204.html

Cases citing this case: Supreme CourtCases citing this case: Circuit Courts

U.S. Supreme CourtU.S. v. BHAGAT SINGH THIND, 261 U.S. 204 (1923)

261 U.S. 204

UNITED STATES v.

BHAGAT SINGH THIND. No. 202.

Argued Jan. 11, 12, 1923. Decided Feb. 19, 1923.

[261 U.S. 204, 205] Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.

Mr. Will R. King, of Washington, D. C., for Thind.

[261 U.S. 204, 206]

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This cause is here upon a certificate from the Circuit Court of appeals requesting the instruction of this Courtin respect of the following questions:

'1. Is a high-caste Hindu, of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India, a white person within themeaning of section 2169, Revised Statutes? [261 U.S. 204, 207] '2. Does the Act of February 5, 1917 (39 Stat. 875, 3), disqualify from naturalization as citizens those Hindusnow barred by that act, who had lawfully entered the United States prior to the passage of said act?'The appellee was granted a certificate of citizenship by the District Court of the United States for the Districtof Oregon, over the objection of the Naturalization Examiner for the United States. A bill in equity was thenfiled by the United States, seeking a cancellation of the certificate on the ground that the appellee was not awhite person and therefore not lawfully entitled to naturalization. The District Court, on motion, dismissedthe bill (In re Bhagat Singh Thind, 268 Fed. 683), and an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Noquestion is made in respect of the individual qualifications of the appellee. The sole question is whether hefalls within the class designated by Congress as eligible.

Section 2169, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. 4358), provides that the provisions of the Naturalization Act 'shallapply to aliens being free white persons and to aliens of af ican nativity and to persons of African descent.'

If the applicant is a white person, within the meaning of this section, he is entitled to naturalization;otherwise not. In Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 , 43 Sup. Ct. 65, 67 L. Ed. --, decided November 13,1922, we had occasion to consider the application of these words to the case of a cultivated Japanese and

FindLaw SUPREME COURT

Not a Legal Professional? Visit our consumer site

Register or Log-In

CASES & CODES PRACTICE MANAGEMENT JOBS & CAREERS LEGAL NEWS BLOGS SERVICE PROVIDERS

Forms Law Technology Lawyer Marketing Corporate Counsel Law Students JusticeMail Newsletters

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=261&invol=204[4/30/2015 12:20:21 PM]

Ads by FindLaw

Like FindLaw now for daily updates on

topics for Legal Professionals.

facebook.com/findlawlegalprofessionals

were constrained to hold that he was not within their meaning. As there pointed out, the provision is not thatany particular class of persons shall be excluded, but it is, in effect, that only white persons shall be includedwithin the privilege of the statute. 'The intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class ofpersons whom the fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified. It is not enoughto say that the framers did not have in mind the brown or yellow races of Asia. It is necessary to go fartherand be able to say that had these particular [261 U.S. 204, 208] races been suggested the language of the actwould have been so varied as to include them within its privileges'-citing Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4Wheat. 518, 644. Following a long line of decisions of the lower Federal courts, we held that the wordsimported a racial and not an individual test and were meant to indicate only persons of what is popularlyknown as the Caucasian race. But, as there pointed out, the conclusion that the phrase 'white persons' and theword 'Caucasian' are synonymous does not end the matter. It enabled us to dispose of the problem as it wasthere presented, since the applicant for citizenship clearly fell outside the zone of debatable ground on thenegative side; but the decision still left the question to be dealt with, in doubtful and different cases, by the'process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.' Mere ability on the part of an applicant for naturalization toestablish a line of descent from a Caucasian ancestor will not ipso facto to and necessarily conclude theinquiry. 'Caucasian' is a conventional word of much flexibility, as a study of the literature dealing with racialquestions will disclose, and while it and the words 'white persons' are treated as synonymous for the purposesof that case, they are not of identical meaning-idem per idem.

In the endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the statute we must not fail to keep in mind that it does notemploy the word 'Caucasian,' but the words 'white persons,' and these are words of common speech and notof scientific origin. The word 'Caucasian,' not .means clear, and the use of it in its scientific probably whollyunfamiliar to the original framers of the statute in 1790. When we employ it, we do so as an aid to theascertainment of the legislative intent and not as an invariable substitute for the statutory words. Indeed, asused in the science of ethnology, the connotation of the word is by no means clear, and the use of it in itsscientific sense as an equivalent [261 U.S. 204, 209] for the words of the statute, other considerations aside,would simply mean the substitution of one perplexity for another. But in this country, during the last halfcentury especially, the word by common usage has acquired a popular meaning, not clearly defined to be sure,but sufficiently so to enable us to say that its popular as distinguished from its scientific application is ofappreciably narrower scope. It is in the popular sense of the word, therefore, that we employ is as an aid tothe construction of the statute, for it would be obviously illogical to convert words of common speech used ina statute into words of scientific terminology when neither the latter nor the science for whose purposes theywere coined was within the contemplation of the framers of the statute or of the people for whom it wasframed. The words of the statute are to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the commonman from whose vocabulary they were taken. See Maillard v. Lawrence, 16 How. 251, 261.

They imply, as we have said, a racial test; but the term 'race' is one which, for the practical purposes of thestatute, must be applied to a group of living persons now possessing in common the requisite characteristics,not to groups of persons who are supposed to be or really are descended from some remote, commonancestor, but who, whether they both resemble him to a greater or less extent, have, at any rate, ceasedaltogether to resemble one another. It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have acommon ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there areunmistakable and profound differences between them to-day; and it is not impossible, if that commonancestor could be materialized in the flesh, we should discover that he was himself sufficiently differentiatedfrom both of his descendants to preclude his racial classification with either. The question for determination[261 U.S. 204, 210] is not, therefore, whether by the speculative processes of ethnological reasoning we maypresent a probability to the scientific mind that they have the same origin, but whether we can satisfy thecommon understanding that they are now the same or sufficiently the same to justify the interpreters of astatute-written in the words of common speech, for common understanding, by unscientific men-inclassifying them together in the statutory category as white persons. In 1790 the Adamite theory of creation-which gave a common ancestor to all mankind-was generally accepted, and it is not at all probable that it wasintended by the legislators of that day to submit the question of the application of the words 'white persons'to the mere test of an indefinitely remote common ancestry, without regard to the extent of the subsequentdivergence of the various branches from such common ancestry or from one another.

The eligibility of this applicant for citizenship is based on the sole fact that he is of high-caste Hindu stock,born in Punjab, one of the extreme northwestern districts of India, and classified by certain scientificauthorities as of the Caucasian or Aryan race The Aryan theory as a racial basis seems to be discredited bymost, if not all, modern writers on the subject of ethnology. A review of their contentions would serve nouseful purpose. It is enough to refer to the works of Deniker ( Races of Man, 317), Keane (Man, Past andPresent, 445, 446), and Huxley ( Man's Place in Nature, 278) and to the Dictionary of Races, SenateDocument 662, 61st Congress, 3d Sess. 1910-1911, p. 17.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=261&invol=204[4/30/2015 12:20:21 PM]

The term 'Aryan' has to do with linguistic, and not at all with physical, characteristics, and it would seemreasonably clear that mere resemblance in language, indicating a common linguistic root buried in remotelyancient soil, is altogether inadequate to prove common racial origin. There is, and can be, no assurance thatthe so-called [261 U.S. 204, 211] Aryan language was not spoken by a variety of races living in proximity toone another. Our own history has witnessed the adoption of the English tongue by millons of negroes, whosedescendants can never be classified racially with the descendants of white persons, notwithstanding both mayspeak a common root language.

The word 'Caucasian' is in scarcely better repute. 1 It is at best a conventional term, with an altogetherfortuitous origin,2 which under scientific manipulation, has come to include far more than the unscientificmind suspects. According to Keane, for example (The World's Peoples, 24, 28, 307, et seq.), it includes notonly the Hindu, but some of the Polynesians3 (that is, the Maori, Tahitians, Samoans, Hawaiians, and others),the Hamites of Africa, upon the ground of the Caucasic cast of their features, though in color they range frombrown to black. We venture to think that the average wellinformed white American would learn with somedegree of astonishment that the race to which he belongs is made up of such heterogeneous elements. 4 [261U.S. 204, 212] The various authorities are in irreconcilable disagreement as to what constitutes a properracial division. For instance, Blumenbach has 5 races; Keane following Linnaeus, 4; Deniker, 29.5 Theexplanation probably is that 'the inumerable varieties of mankind run into one another by insensibledegrees,'6 and to arrange them in sharply bounded divisions is an undertaking of such uncertainty thatcommon agreement is practically impossible.

It may be, therefore, that a given group cannot be properly assigned to any of the enumerated grand racialdivisions. The type may have been so changed by intermixture of blood as to justify an intermediateclassification. Something very like this has actually taken place in India. Thus, in Hindustan and Berar therewas such an intermixture of the 'Aryan' invader with the darkskinned Dravidian. 7

In the Punjab and Rajputana, while the invaders seem to have met with more success in the effort to preserve[261 U.S. 204, 213] their racial purity,8 intermarriages did occur producing an intermingling of the two anddestroying to a greater or less degree the purity of the 'Aryan' blood. The rules of caste, while calculated toprevent this intermixture, seem not to have been entirely successful. 9

It does not seem necessary to pursue the matter of scientific classification further. We are unable to agreewith the District Court, or with other lower federal courts, in the conclusion that a native Hindu is eligible fornaturalization under section 2169. The words of familiar speech, which were used by the original framers ofthe law, were intended to include only the type of man whom they knew as white. The immigration of thatday was almost exclusively from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe, whence they and their forebearshad come. When they extended the privilege of American citizenship to 'any alien being a free white person' itwas these immigrants-bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh-and their kind whom they must have hadaffirmatively in mind. The succeeding years brought immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Middle Europe,among them the Slavs and the dark-eyed, swarthy people of Alpine and Mediterranean stock, and these werereceived as unquestionably akin to those already here and readily amalgamated with them. It was thedescendants of these, and [261 U.S. 204, 214] other immigrants of like origin, who constituted the whitepopulation of the country when section 2169, re-enacting the naturalization test of 1790, was adopted, and,there is no reason to doubt, with like intent and meaning.

What, if any, people of Primarily Asiatic stock come within the words of the section we do not deem itnecessary now to decide. There is much in the origin and historic development of the statute to suggest thatno Asiatic whatever was included. The debates in Congress, during the consideration of the subject in 1870and 1875, are persuasively of this character. In 1873, for example, the words 'free white persons' wereunintentionally omitted from the compilation of the Revised Statutes. This omission was supplied in 1875 bythe act to correct errors and supply omissions. 18 Stat. c. 80, p. 318. When this act was under considerationby Congress efforts were made to strike out the words quoted, and it was insisted upon the one hand andconceded upon the other, that the effect of their retention was to exclude Asiatics generally from citizenship.While what was said upon that occasion, to be sure, furnishes no basis for judicial construction of the statute,it is, nevertheless, an important historic incident, which may not be altogether ignored in the search for thetrue meaning of words which are themselves historic. That question, however, may well be left for finaldetermination until the details have been more completely disclosed by the consideration of particular cases,as they from time to time arise. The words of the statute, it must be conceded, do not readily yield to exactinterpretation, and it is probably better to leave them as they are than to risk undue extension or unduelimitation of their meaning by any general paraphrase at this time.

What we now hold is that the words 'free white persons' are words of common speech, to be interpreted inaccordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word 'Caucasian' only as that

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=261&invol=204[4/30/2015 12:20:21 PM]

[261 U.S. 204, 215] word is popularly understood. As so understood and used, whatever may be thespeculations of the ethnologist, it does not include the body of people to whom the appellee belongs. It is amatter of familiar observation and knowledge that the physical group characteristics of the Hindus renderthem readily distinguishable from the various groups of persons in this country commonly recognized aswhite. The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European parentage,quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distincitive hallmarks of their European origin. Onthe other hand, it cannot be doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu parents would retainindefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestry. It is very far from our thought to suggest the slightestquestion of racial superiority or inferiority. What we suggest is merely racial difference, and it is of suchcharacter and extent that the great body of our people instinctively recognize it and reject the thought ofassimilation.

It is not without significance in this connection that Congress, by the Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 874, c.29, 3 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 4289 1/4b), has now excluded from admission into thiscountry all natives of Asia within designated limits of latitude and longitude, including the whole of India.This not only constitutes conclusive evidence of the congressional attitude of opposition to Asiaticimmigration generally, but is persuasive of a similar attitude toward Asiatic naturalization as well, since it isnot likely that Congress would be willing to accept as citizens a class of persons whom it rejects asimmigrants.

It follows that a negative answer must be given to the first question, which disposes of the case and rendersan answer to the second question unnecessary, and it will be so certified.

Answer to question No. 1, No.

Footnotes

[ Footnote 1 ] Dictionary of Races, supra, p. 31.

[ Footnote 2 ] 2 Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th Ed.) p. 113: 'The ill-chosen name of Caucasian, invented byBlumenbach in allusion to a South Caueasian skull of specially typical proportions, and applied by him to theso- called white races, is still current; it brings into one race peoples such as the Arabs and Swedes, althoughthese are scarcely less different than the Americans and Malays, who are set down as two distinct races.Again, two of the best marked varieties of mankind are the Australians and the Bushmen, neither of whom,however, seems to have a natural place in Blumenbach's series.'

[ Footnote 3 ] The United States Bureau of Immigration classifies all Pacific Islanders as belonging to the'Mongolic grand division.' Cistionary of Races, supra, p. 102.

[ Footnote 4 ] Keane himself says that the Caucasic division of the human family is 'in point of fact the mostdebatable field in the whole range of anthropological studies.' Man: Past and Present, p. 444

And again: 'Hence it seems to require a strong mental effort to sweep into a single category, however elastic,so many different peoples- Europeans, North Africans, West Asiatics, Iranians, and others all the way to theIndo-Gangetic plains and uplands, whose complexion presents every shade of color, except yellow, from whiteto the deepest brown or even black.

'But they are grouped together in a single division, because their essential properties are one, ... theirsubstantial uniformity speaks to the eye that sees below the surface ... we recognize a common racial stamp inthe facial expression, the structure of the hair, partly also the bodily proportions, in all of which points theyagree more with each other than with the other main divisions. Even in the case of cer ain black or very darkraces, such as the Bejas, Somali, and a few other Eastern Hamites, we are reminded instinctively more ofEuropeans or Berbers than of thanks to their more regular features and brighter expression.' Id. 448.

[ Footnote 5 ] Dictionary of Races, supra, p. 6. See, generally, 2 Encyclopedia Britannica (11th Ed.) p. 113.

[ Footnote 6 ] 2 Encyclopedia Britannica (11th Ed.) p. 113.

[ Footnote 7 ] 13 Encyclopedia Britannica (11th Ed.) p. 502.

[ Footnote 8 ] Id.

[ Footnote 9 ] 13 Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 503. 'In spite, however, of the artificial restrictions placed on theintermarrying of the castes, the mingling of the two races seems to have proceeded at a tolerably rapid rate.Indeed, the paucity of women of the Aryan stock would probably render these mixed unions almost a

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=261&invol=204[4/30/2015 12:20:21 PM]

RESEARCH THE LAW

MANAGE YOUR PRACTICE

MANAGE YOUR CAREER

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

GET LEGAL FORMS

ABOUT US

FIND US ON

Cases & Codes / Opinion Summaries / Sample Business Contracts / Research an Attorney or Law Firm

Law Technology / Law Practice Management / Law Firm Marketing Services / Corporate Counsel Center

Legal Career Job Search / Online CLE / Law Student Resources

Legal News Headlines / Law Commentary / Featured Documents / Newsletters / Blogs / RSS Feeds

Legal Forms for Your Practice

Company History / Media Relations / Contact Us / Privacy / Advertising / Jobs

Copyright © 2015, Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

necessity from the very outset; and the vaunted purity of blood which the caste rules were calculated toperpetuate can scarcely have remained of more than a relative degree even in the case of the Brahman caste.'

And see the observations of Keane (Man, Past and Present, p. 561) as to the doubtful origin and effect ofcaste.

Dr. Khyati Yogeshkumar Joshi Khyati Y. Joshi is an Associate Professor of Education at Fairleigh Dickinson University. Prior to joining the faculty at Fairleigh Dickinson, Dr. Joshi was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race at Columbia University, where for two years she taught Asian American Studies and Comparative Ethnic Studies. She also taught in the American Studies program at Princeton University. Dr. Joshi is the author of the book New Roots in America’s Sacred Ground: Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Indian America (Rutgers University Press, 2006), which was awarded the National Association for Multicultural Education’s 2007 Philip C. Chinn Book Award. She is co-editor of Asian Americans Down South (University of Illinois Press, 2013) and Understanding Religious Oppression and ChristianPrivilege (Sense Publishers, 2008). She has co-authored chapters on religious oppression and immigration, racism and globalization for the second editions of both Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (Routledge, 2010) and Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (Routledge, 2007), and contributed a chapter on second-generation Hindu Americans toSustaining Faith Traditions, an anthology on race, religion and second-generation Americans (New York University Press, 2012). Dr. Joshi is the Religion, Schools And Society section editor for the Encyclopedia on Diversity in Education (Sage Publications) edited by James Banks. Her forthcoming book examines the intersections of race and religion in U.S. history and contemporary social culture. In 2012, Dr. Joshi was invited to present her research on Hindu American Communities at the White House in Washington, D.C.In 2011, she delivered a plenary address at an International Conference on the Gujarati Diaspora at North Gujarat University, sponsored by the Government of India;the conference brought together leading scholars on the Indian experience from the U.S., United Kingdom, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific islands.In 2009, Dr. Joshi was invited to address the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, Austria, on the racialization of religion, particularly Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam, as it relates to the development of policies to prevent and combat hate crimes in the 56 countries in the OSCE region. In New Jersey, Dr. Joshi has provided testimony before the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Immigration,has been a member of the Governor’s Asian American Commission since 2005, and served on the New Jersey Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Commission from 2006 to 2008. Dr. Joshi provides consultation and professional development for educational institutions throughout the United States on topics related to immigrants in schools, race in education, and religion and public schools. Professor Joshi is member and past Co-Chair (2008-2011) of the managing board for the Asian Pacific American Religion Research Initiative (APARRI). Her recent academic presentations in the U.S. include an invited paper on “Religion and Globalization” at the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and a paper on “Second Generation A and B” at the Association of Asian American Studies (AAAS). Dr. Joshi has also presented papers at one or more annual conferences of the following scholarly organizations: American Studies Association (ASA), American Educational Research Association (AERA),

National Association of Multicultural Educators (NAME), and the Asian Pacific American Religion Research Initiative (APARRI). Professor Joshi earned her doctorate in Social Justice Education at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She received a Masters in Theological Studies from Candler School of Theology at Emory University and a B.A. in Religion from Emory University. She also pursued post-graduate studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and participated in the Summer Seminar for Educators at YadVashem, The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, in Israel. Often contacted by journalists, Professor Joshi has been quoted in The Times of India, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Houston Chronicle, the Saint Louis Dispatch, the Star Ledger, The Tennessean, and the Daily Record of New Jersey. She resides in Wayne, New Jersey, with her husband and son.