Is UVA’s Housing Policy Racist?
I wouldn’t have thought so, but listen to John Evans, UVA’s Director of Housing Accomodations, who asserts that “the housing assignment process is race-blind.” Since many of those who favor racial preferences claim that race-blind admissions and hiring policies are racist, perhaps they would apply the same label to race-blind student housing assignments.
The Cavalier Daily article cited above provides more evidence for something that really should not be in doubt, i.e., that universities that do the most to implement “diversity” often have less of it than others, and worse actual relations between races. Thus, at a recent forum on housing problems the forum moderator asserted, to widespread agreement that “space in our community is racialized.”
The same issue of the Cavalier Daily contained other evidence that all is not well in the garden of “diversity,” an opinion column that demanded “Ending Asian Exclusion.”
ASIANS and Asian-PacificAmericans comprise about 17 percent of the University population, represent 50 CIOs [student organizations] on grounds, and have the highest graduation rate among all minority groups. Yet, the University rewards their significance and contributions with sheer neglect in nearly every aspect of University life — be it faculty, funding or anti-discrimination policies. It is timethe University address its dismal record of dealing with Asian discrimination and give the community the place it deserves.Jesse Jackson and others may speak wistfully of a “Rainbow Coalition,” but UVA seems to be experiencing more thunder storms than rainbows:
Also of concern is the extent of racial discrimination against Asians at the University. In 2005, according to The Cavalier Daily, a survey showed that 51 percent of APA [Asian Pacific-American] students “have experienced or witnessed discrimination against APAs”. In the Spring 2006 Summary Report of Bias Complaints, which analyzes acts of bias or discrimination against students reported via the Office of the Dean of Students’ “Just Report It” website, ten targets were Asian-Pacific Americans. This was higher than the number of incidents for any other racial or ethnic group.Nothing about this victimization competition is, or should be surprising. As Nathan Glazer wrote back in 1975 (quoted here), racial preferences predictably lead to (and, I would add, have led to)Despite this, there is not a single APA member on the Committee of Diversity and Equity, which is populated entirely by blacks. In another Cavalier Daily article, Assistant College Dean Beverly Adams said in 2005 that while “blacks may feel their voice will be heard if they speak, Asian students may not feel that way.” [Asian Student Union president Patrick] Lee, for instance, said he was shocked that many students at the University asked him if he was lying in a letter he wrote to the editor about acts of discrimination against Asians on Grounds, or if they “actually happened”. By turning anti-discrimination efforts into an exclusively African-American issue, the University is ignoring the realities that occur on Grounds and nurturing a climate where discrimination against other minorities are overlooked, underestimated or simply dismissed.
a real Balkanization, in which group after group struggles for the benefits of special treatment.... The demand for special treatment will lead to animus against other groups that already have it, by those who think they should have it and don't....As evidenced by Jian Li’s complaint against Princeton (see here and here), and much resulting evidence, I suspect most Asian students these days want equal treatment, not “special treatment.”The rising emphasis on group difference which government is called upon to correct might mean the destruction of any hope for the larger fraternity of all Americans. [AFFIRMATIVE DISCRIMINATION (Basic Books, 1975)]
Say What?
"...during the 19th century when Chinese slaves were brought to the US for the Transcontinental Railroad."
It doesn't do the author any credit to include this statement. Chinese workers were paid workers. They eagerly sought the work in America, although it is true many were mislead by promises of higher wages and better housing etc. than they actually received, a problem all workers suffer from. Although there are stories of conscription for some of the Chinese workers, these were homeland Chinese exacting servitude (like identured American colonists) for family debts where the wages earned would go the Chinese landlord or debtee back home until the debt was paid.
In other words, what "slavery" did occur was inflicted by the Chinese against their own and originated back home in China. American RR capitalists were more than happy to pay the hard working Chinese laborers.
Posted by: mikem
|
February 6, 2007 1:56 AM
Doesn't this demonstrate that the "diversity" crowd think of asian-americans as just a subset of whites instead of a separate ethnic group.
Look up the percentage of students of HBU's that are Asian (less than one percent).
Posted by: superdestroyer
|
February 6, 2007 5:10 AM