NOTE: This post has been updated with two ADDENDA, one internal and one at the end.
For those of you who’ve never encountered the term, “yellow peril” is a racial epithet applied to Asian immigrants. Wikipedia defines it pretty well:
Yellow Peril (sometimes Yellow Terror) was a color metaphor for race that originated in the late nineteenth century with immigration of Chinese laborers to various Western countries, notably the United States, and later to the Japanese during the mid 20th century due to Japanese military expansion. The term refers to the skin color of East Asians, and the belief that the mass immigration of Asians threatened white wages and standards of living.
Today the insulting term has virtually disappeared from political discourse, but an ironic argument can be made — indeed, as you might have guessed, I’m about to make it — that it should be revived, albeit with considerably different and more positive connotations. If the entire edifice of racial preference is demolished, that demolition will in all likelihood owe as much to this new “yellow peril,” the increasing criticisms of race and ethnic preferences by Asian-Americans, as to the legal arguments of groups like the Center for Individual Rights, the policy arguments of groups like the Center for Equal Opportunity, and the sheer drive and organizing skill of Ward Connerly and his small staff.
I have referred to Asian-American resistance to racial preferences many times before. My very last post, in fact, mentions criticism of similar Canadian programs by the Asian Pacific Post. I discussed some of these old and ongoing complaints here, and have pointed out a number of times that when racial preferences in admissions are eliminated the proportion of admitted whites stays the same or actually declines while the proportion of Asians increases dramatically, as I noted here:
… the racial group most affected by the ending of race preferences in California is whites: their proportion of entering freshmen [in the University of California] fell from 40% in 1997 to 34% in 2005. Two minority groups saw their proportion of entering freshmen increase: Asians, whose proportion rose from 37% in 1997 to 41% in 2005; and Latinos, who rose from 13% to 16%. The proportion of blacks fell from 4% in 1997 to 3% in 2005.
[ADDENDUM: As I discussed here, a recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly found that “if preferences based on race, legacy status, and athletic talent were all done away with, Asian-American enrollment would jump 40 percent (while white enrollment would drop by 1 percent).”]
I have the impression — so far it is no more than that — that the pace and volume of Asian-American opposition to racial preference policies may be increasing. If so, an article reported earlier this week in the New York Post, “In ‘Wrong’ Minority,” may be a harbinger of things to come.
November 19, 2007 — Three Chinese parents in Brooklyn are expected to file a federal lawsuit today challenging a popular city-run tutoring program on the grounds it discriminates against Asians, The Post has learned.
The Specialized High School Institute preps gifted but “underrepresented” minorities to ace the competitive exam to get into top city high schools like Stuyvesant or Brooklyn Tech.
But the parents say it is unfair — and illegal — for the Department of Education to limit eligibility to blacks and Latinos.
“The program only selects certain kinds of minorities and unfortunately my daughter didn’t fall into that category,” said Peggy Foo-Ching, 47, a mom from Bensonhurst who said her 12-year-old daughter’s application last year was ignored.
….
A Department of Education internal memo obtained by lawyers trying the case indicated that eligibility criteria excludes whites and Asians.
“What this memo reveals is blatant and categorical discrimination by race. If you are white or Asian, you’re not supposed to get an application,” said Christopher Hajec, an attorney with the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative advocacy group.
“It’s not the business of the government of New York City to be counting up the Asians or whites in, say, Stuyvesant High School and concluding there are too many of them.”
In an odd twist, the short notice of this lawsuit in the New York Times noted that “[s]ince the institute’s creation more than a decade ago, the proportion of black and Hispanic students at the city’s most elite high schools has actually decreased; last year, 2.2 percent of Stuyvesant students were black.”
The Center for Individual Rights, as usual, is invaluable, in part because it is indefatigable. Its press release explains that
White and Asian students are prevented from even applying to the program. One parent, Stanley Ng (pron. “Ing”) was denied an application by his daughter’s junior high school guidance counselor. When Ng contacted the Office of Teaching and Learning in November 2006, an official told him the program was not open to white or Asian applicants.
Read CIR’s entire complaint here.
Meanwhile, across the country on the Left Coast, the University of California has modified its skin-counting methods in a manner that perhaps says even more about the unraveling of the rationale for racial preference than the objections of some “people of color” to preferential treatment based on color. As the Daily Californian reported at the beginning of this week, “UC to Break Up Ethnic Groups on Application.”
Following systemwide protests by student groups, the University of California will increase threefold the number of subgroups under the Asian and Pacific Islander categories on its admission application, officials announced Friday.
The announcement from the UC Office of the President comes in the wake of the Count Me In campaign, which united students from all UC campuses to protest what they called the university’s use of the “umbrella term” of Asian on the admission application.
The admission application previously categorized Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders into eight groups, but will now include 23 options.
Asian American categories will include Chinese, Taiwanese, Asian Indian, Japanese, Pakistani, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, Hmong, Thai, Cambodian, Laotian, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Malaysian and “other Asian.”
The Pacific Islander category, previously under one heading, will now include Native Hawaiian, Guamanian/Chamorro, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian and “other Pacific Islander.”
According to William Kidder, a UC Administrator who is said to have studied Asian-American students, “[t]he effort will help the university track groups that have not been adequately studied, such as Hmong and Samoan students.”
Kidder, obviously quite proud of this new policy shift, also spoke to InsideHigherEd.
“Many of the most disadvantaged groups in terms of parental education level and family income are the groups we don’t collect on the application,” said Bill Kidder, special assistant to the vice chancellor for student affairs at the university system. The new data will better enable campus officials to compare the graduation rates of different groups and to develop ways to support students who face difficulties.
There are a couple of truly striking things about UC’s new move to disaggregate its Asian applicants and students, but let me start by demonstrating the falsehood of the old saw, “you can’t kid a kidder.” You can, and I’m about to.
If you will review one of my posts (this one) on the so-far successful effort to prevent the California Bar Association from releasing any of its data on bar passage rates by race and ethnicity, you will see that this same William Kidder supported keeping this crucial data secret because its release “risks stigmatizing African American attorneys.” Now, however, he’s all in favor of collecting and using similar data in order to “enable campus officials to compare the graduation rates of different groups….”
For some reason — perhaps because he will control the data, and can keep the lid on any he deems embarrassing — Kidder seems blithely unconcerned that this data on previously unstudied disadvantaged sub-groups of Asians “risks stigmatizing” the Hmong, Samoans, Tong, Guamanian/Chamorro, etc.
More significant, however, than Kidder’s all too typical hypocritical inconsistency, disaggregating “Asians” into their national or tribal sub-groups reveals a fundamental hollowness at the core of the “diversity” rationale for racial and ethnic preference. If “Asians” are not Asian but Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Cambodian, Tong, etc., etc., then just as surely “Hispanics” are not fundamentally Hispanic but Mexican, Cuban, Guatemalan, Spanish, Dominican, etc., etc. And, by same logic, “Native American” should also be dumped in favor of Cherokee, Cheyenne, Apache, etc., etc., and “African-American” should at least not be applied to black Frenchmen, Moroccans, Haitians, Kenyans, etc., etc., not to mention the possible relevance here of South Africa’s distinction between “black” and “colored.”
But sensible as these substitutions are, or would be, on one level, on another they merely substitute preference based on national origin for preference based on race or ethnicity. But if that is, or becomes, the case, what will be the justification for refusing to be “nation-conscious” or “nation-sensitive” (if I can adopt the current “race-conscious” and “race-sensitive” terms in use now) of a whole host of clearly “diversity”-providing nations such as Finland or France or Egypt or Turkey?
But if that were done, as consistency and even common sense demand, that would leave only one group in the whole world about whom it would not be necessary to be “conscious” or “sensitive”: normal, everyday, run of the mill white Americans, and that’s without even dealing with the question of how long it takes to become one. (Are Chinese-Americans still Chinese after three generations? Two? Does it take Filipino-Americans longer to become, what, regular Americans (?) than it does, say, Italian-Americans?
Kidder et. al. clearly have their work cut out for themselves, but their lack of any apparent concern for consistency will no doubt make it easier.
ADDENDUM: Asians As The “New Jews” (Continued)
I have written before about Asians as the “New Jews.” See here and here. In the first of those I quoted the following from an impressive article in the Detroit News:
Until the early 20th century, even the most elite American universities, such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, were largely regional campuses. But faced with a high influx of academically talented Jewish students, they sought to reduce the numbers of that group. Aware that Jews (and to a lesser extent Roman Catholics) were concentrated in Northeast cities, they devised a system of national recruitment to restrict numbers of Jews while avoiding charges of overt discrimination.
Then as now, a key concept was diversity, only then it meant (in public) geographic diversity. Then as now, quotas were publicly denied even while an elaborate system to maintain de facto quotas evolved. Then as now, administrators argued that other things besides grades and examinations mattered as much or more — character, for example, or obstacles overcome. Then as now, the result was to transfer places that would have gone disproportionately to members of an academically talented minority group to members of other groups.
And then as now, the ends were felt to justify the means….
There is a final “then as now” worth noting: In both cases, administrators sought to hide their practices.
As Jerome Karabel demonstrates in The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (discussed here, here, and here and here), when the Ivies decided to restrict the number of Jews they admitted early in the 20th Century, they did so by de-emphasizing pure academic merit as measured by grades, tests, etc., and elevating the importance of intangibles such as “character” and “leadership,” along with taking care to cast their admissions net in waters less populated by the pesky Jews.
That process continues, or has resumed, now aimed at Asians, who are stereotyped as math/science nerds, grinds, etc. In that regard, reader Ed Chin, who gathers and distributes via email reams of interesting information dealing with discrimination against Asians, recently sent this fascinating Harvard senior thesis by Social Studies major Jenny Tsai, “Too Many Asians at this School”: Racialized Perceptions and Identity Formation, about attempts to restrict Asian enrollment at New York City’s highly selective Hunter College High School.
From Ms. Tsai’s Introduction:
My thesis investigates the origins of the perception that there are “too many Asians” in magnet public high schools….
This question grew out of my own personal experience. I attended Hunter College High School (HCHS), a magnet high school in New York City. My entering class in 1997 was 30 percent Asian, but the incoming class when I was a senior in 2003 was over 50 percent Asian. During my senior year, the view emerged among both the students and the principal was that there were too many Asian students, to the detriment of the school.1 The school’s 2003 curricular review had a sub-committee devoted to HCHS’s admissions process. The main concern of the admissions sub-committee was to determine the school’s success in educating the brightest young talent in New York City. After comparing the demographic of the primarily white and Asian student body with that of New York City as a whole, the sub-committee deemed that the current admissions process unsatisfactory. Suggestions for improvement focused on ways to increase diversity at HCHS. Proposals included eliminating automatic admissions from Hunter College Elementary School, capping high school admissions per district in New York City, increasing the percentage of low-income students, which was hen at 10 percent, and increasing outreach to underrepresented neighborhoods.
The Chinese Parent Teacher Association reacted negatively to the proposal of capping the number of students by district, as many of the Asian students were from three or four neighborhoods in Queens—Flushing, Forest Hills, Bayside, and Fresh Meadows. They argued that the proposals would directly target the number of Asian students…. Discussions revealed that students from a variety of racial backgrounds felt that the increasing percentage of Asian students at the school threatened the culture of the school. HCHS prided itself on being a school that fostered student leadership through a plethora of student clubs, sports teams, and artistic groups. Students attested that the growing Asian student population had detracted from the creativity and independence that had defined HCHS’s activity scene as the Asian students focused primarily on their academic studies. Those Asian students who were active in extracurricular activities were perceived to be disingenuous. Students felt that Asian students knew how to manipulate the college admissions committees, but lacked passion for the activities they participated in.
Sounds like déjà vu (or déjà Jew) all over again.
The Tsai thesis is fascinating because it demonstrates how future elites (Harvard students) have absorbed the sick ideology of white privilege explaining everyone else’s failings.
Fortunately, according to this thesis the problem of anti-semitism has been solved — Jews are today fully considered white, and are now practitioners of privilege. Note the contrast and apparent contradiction in the following two extracts from the thesis.
“Race plays a larger role in “meritocracies” than merit. The Jewish male got picked
because he was white, and his whiteness compensated for his lack of experience.”
“Jewish students at Harvard experienced similar racial prejudice in the
1930’s because they were taking the space of wealthy, Protestant male students
who previously comprised the only ethnic group able to pass the admissions test.”
Jews are today fully considered white, and are now practitioners of privilege.
Gee, I must need to practice a lot more, because I’m still not very good at it….
This account of how Ivies became national to save themselves from becoming Jewish has some truth, and some propagandistic false emphasis to it. The Ivies then were moving every year towards all-merit admissions, starting from a baseline of local recruitment, social connectedness to families considered to represent good breeding in those days, and depending on the reputation of elite mostly private high schools. For decades up til the 1960’s, the motion was always towards more merit, more reliance on tests and more scientific ones. In this period since the quota policies for disadvantaged minorities got going, these schools have moved every year further away from merit admissions, as they want a larger quota for disadvantaged minorities every year. This is very different from, and much worse than, the earlier decades, which were supposedly a golden age of prejudice in the Ivy League. Moral progress has not been made; the best schools are anti-merit to a large extent today, but the same schools before IQ testing were just not very proficient at identifying promise in teenagers who weren’t from the renowned high schools.
Mr. Bolton said, “Moral progress has not been made; the best schools are anti-merit to a large extent today, but the same schools before IQ testing were just not very proficient at identifying promise in teenagers who weren’t from the renowned high schools.”
These schools ARE NOT very proficient at identifying promise in teenagers who aren’t from the renowned high schools today, especially poor Asian Americans who score well and obtain HIGH GPAs, outperforming rich privileged blacks, Latinos and whites, because of racial preferences capping their numbers by a limiting racial quota against Asians. This is the point of the Harvard senior honors thesis by Social Studies major Jenny Tsai, “Too Many Asians at this School”:Racialized Perceptions and Identity Formation”, about attempts to restrict Asian enrollment at New York City’s highly selective Hunter College High School.
http://leverett.harvard.edu/showcase/jenny-tsai.pdf
Reread the posts by Leo Cruz again. I think you are in Fantasy Land with your statement. Admissions to the Ivies/Elites have nothing to do with real merit per se, but with the definition of “merit” as provided for by the these schools out of self-interest and the need for survival. “Merit” is in a constant state of flux in that it always changes to suit the needs of those who hold the power to admit to favor themselves and/or their children.
Read the exchanges between you, Mr. Bolton and Leo Cruz here:
http://www.discriminations.us/2005/10/the_best_may_not_be_the_bright_1.html
The under performing rich black or Latino is admitted over the poorer HIGHER performing Asian Americans, due to racial preferences/racial quotas.Her thesis is about her experiences as a student at one of NYC’s MOST elite and highest academic accomplished public magnet high schools, Hunter College High School (HCHS) which has reached a point of over 50% Asian Americans and has prompted calls for the capping of Asian students by hook and crook, simply because *there are too many Asians*. This is indeed a deja-vu situation with the Jews of old, especially at NYC’s elite public magnet schools such as Stuyvesant and the Bronx High School of Science which were over 90% Jewish at one time, producing numerous Nobel Prize winners in the sciences as well as literature and even Michael Sovern, the former President of Columbia University, a Bronx Science alum.
I agree with Leo Cruz (biaknabato) on many of the points he posted.
Please read the story of Xuan-Trang Ho, who did not attend the Ivies, possibly because she was denied due to racial quotas, but she tested at the HIGHEST levels in standardized tests and achieved academically, socially, and physically, at the highest levels, including winning a Rhodes Scholarship.
The Model Students- Nicholas Kristof Op-Ed Columnist- NYTimes
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/opinion/14kristof.html?pagewanted=print
The New York Times
May 14, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Model Students
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Why are Asian-Americans so good at school? Or, to put it another way, why is Xuan-Trang Ho so perfect?
Trang came to the United States in 1994 as an 11-year-old Vietnamese girl who spoke no English. Her parents, neither having more than a high school education, settled in Nebraska and found jobs as manual laborers.
The youngest of eight children, Trang learned English well enough that when she graduated from high school, she was valedictorian. Now she is a senior at Nebraska Wesleyan with a 3.99 average, a member of the USA Today All-USA College Academic Team and a new Rhodes Scholar.
Increasingly in America, stellar academic achievement has an Asian face. In 2005, Asian-Americans averaged a combined math-verbal SAT of 1091, compared with 1068 for whites, 982 for American Indians, 922 for Hispanics and 864 for blacks. Forty-four percent of Asian-American students take calculus in high school, compared with 28 percent of all students.
Among whites, 2 percent score 750 or better in either the math or verbal SAT. Among Asian-Americans, 3 percent beat 750 in verbal, and 8 percent in math. Frankly, you sometimes feel at an intellectual disadvantage if your great-grandparents weren’t peasants in an Asian village.
So I asked Trang why Asian-Americans do so well in school.
“I can’t speak for all Asian-Americans,” Trang told me, “but for me and my friends, it was because of the sacrifices that our parents made. … It’s so difficult to see my parents get up at 5 each morning to go to factories to earn $6.30 an hour. I see that there is so much that I can do in America that my parents couldn’t.”
Of course, not all Asian-Americans are so painfully perfect — Filipinos are among the largest groups of Asian-Americans and they do very well without being stellar. Success goes particularly to those whose ancestors came from the Confucian belt from Japan through Korea and China to Vietnam.
It’s not just the immigrant mentality, for Japanese-American students are mostly fourth- and fifth-generation now, and they’re still excelling. Nor is it just about family background, for Chinese-Americans who trace their origins to peasant villages also graduate summa.
One theory percolating among some geneticists is that in societies that were among the first with occupations that depended on brains, genetic selection may have raised I.Q.’s slightly — a theory suggesting that maybe Asians are just smarter. But I’m skeptical, partly because so much depends on context.
In the U.S., for example, ethnic Koreans are academic stars. But in Japan, ethnic Koreans languish in an underclass, often doing poorly in schools and becoming involved in the yakuza mafia. One lesson may be that if you discriminate against a minority and repeatedly shove its members off the social escalator, then you create pathologies of self-doubt that can become self-sustaining.
So then why do Asian-Americans really succeed in school? Aside from immigrant optimism, I see two and a half reasons:
First, as Trang suggests, is the filial piety nurtured by Confucianism for 2,500 years. Teenagers rebel all over the world, but somehow Asian-American kids often manage both to exasperate and to finish their homework. And Asian-American families may not always be warm and fuzzy, but they tend to be intact and focused on their children’s getting ahead.
Second, Confucianism encourages a reverence for education. In Chinese villages, you still sometimes see a monument to a young man who centuries ago passed the jinshi exam — the Ming dynasty equivalent of getting a perfect SAT. In a Confucian culture, it is intuitive that the way to achieve glory and success is by working hard and getting A’s.
Then there’s the half-reason: American kids typically say in polls that the students who succeed in school are the “brains.” Asian kids typically say that the A students are those who work hard. That means no Asian-American ever has an excuse for not becoming valedictorian.
“Anybody can be smart, can do great on standardized tests,” Trang explains. “But unless you work hard, you’re not going to do well.”
If I’m right, the success of Asian-Americans is mostly about culture, and there’s no way to transplant a culture. But there are lessons we can absorb, and maybe the easiest is that respect for education pays dividends. That can come, for example, in the form of higher teacher salaries, or greater public efforts to honor star students. While there are no magic bullets, we would be fools not to try to learn some Asian lessons.
If merit is a subjective socially-constructed way of favoring or disfavoring various groups, Asians have no way to complain that they’re not getting what a merit system would give them. Any group that’s above their egalitarian pro rata expected share eliminates their chance to complain of getting less than they should on a merit basis, if they also say that objective merit is never really found.
Mr. Bolton said,
“If merit is a subjective socially-constructed way of favoring or disfavoring various groups, Asians have no way to complain that they’re not getting what a merit system would give them. Any group that’s above their egalitarian pro rata expected share eliminates their chance to complain of getting less than they should on a merit basis, if they also say that objective merit is never really found.”
Oh really??
“Merit” is in a constant state of flux in that it always changes to suit the needs of those who hold the power to admit to favor themselves and/or their children. The journal, The Economist, called this MERIT IN MOTION in a previous article.
WHY SHOULDN’T EVERYONE IN AMERICA COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS AND NOT ONLY ASIAN AMERICANS??
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which group it is directed against, even Asian Americans, one of America’s smallest minority groups, seemingly politically insignificant. They are dubbed the “new Jews”
I thought we all still live the the USA, and not in Communist China. By the way, thank God that we all still live in America.
Dan Golden has written a series of Pulitzer Winning articles on “AA for affluent whites” in elite college admissions. Sadly to say, the *evil* and *immoral* nature of admissions in elite private colleges and elite preps, is also determined by color solely, as in “AA for blacks or browns” or “AA for affluent whites”. The Asian Americans, or “yellows” are the only non-preferred group in admissions, receiving, “negative action” as opposed to AA for whites or blacks and browns. Asian American applicants don’t need either. They just need a fair and just process, not based on race and skin color, with the process being RACE AND ETHNIC GROUP BLIND. Golden is also also aware of the Espenshade study of preferential treatment in admissions, among other studies. I do suggest that you write him, if you disagree with anything he has written, or read his book, “The Price of Admission”.
Click on the following to read WSJ’s Dan Golden’s Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles on these matters.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PulitzerDG04052004.htm?mod=home_journal_links
Golden also has a chapter about the discrimination against Asian Ams who have to meet a higher standard for admissions (SAT scores 50 to 100 points higher than the average) and a higher holistic criteria (motivations, creativity, ECs, overcoming obstacles and life experiences). He states that Asian Americans faced the same discrimination Jews did. Asians faced a HIGHER bar for admissions. He talks about the stereotypes of Asians , which he states “that if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Click on the following link to listen to Golden’s interview on his book, The Price of Admission.
http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20060906/pod-wsjgolden/pod-wsjgolden.mp3
He talks about legacy, sports, and rich and famous VIP preferences in admissions to the Ivies.
Dan Golden has a chapter about the discrimination against Asian Ams who have to meet a higher standard of admissions (SAT scores as much as 125 points higher) and a higher holistic criteria (motivations, creativity, ECs). He states that Asian American faced the same discrimination Jews did. Asians faced a higher bar. He talks about the stereotypes of Asians , which he states “that if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Sports helps rich affluent whites, not URMs, and not poor whites in elite college admissions in sports such as crew, squash, fencing, etc., in preps such as Groton and Andover.
From Daniel Golden’s The Price of Admission, Chapter 7, “The New Jews, Asian
Americans Need Not Apply”:
“In 1990, federal investigators concluded that UCLA’s graduate department in mathematics
had discriminated against Asian applicants.”
“……… most elite universities have maintained a triple standard in college admissions,
setting the bar highest for Asians, next for whites, and lowest for blacks and Hispanics.
According to a 2004 study by three Princeton researchers, an Asian American applicant
needs to score 50 points higher on the SAT than other applicants just to have the same chance
of admission to an elite university. (Being an alumni child, by contrast, confers a 160-point
advantage.) Yale records show that entering Asian American freshmen averaged a 1493
SAT score in 1999-2000, 1496 in 2000-2001, and 1482 in 2001-2. For the same three years,
the average for white freshmen was about 40 points lower. Black and Hispanic freshmen
lagged another 100-125 points below whites. A Yale spokesman attributed the Asian-white
gap to more whites being recruited athletes, and said Asians and whites are held to the same
academic standards.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Federal investigators also turned up stereotyping by Harvard admissions evaluators. Possibly
reflecting a lack of cultural understanding, Harvard evaluators ranked Asian American candidates
on average below whites in “personal qualities.” In comments written in applicants’ files, Harvard
admissions staff repeatedly described Asian Americans as “being quiet/shy, science/math oriented,
and hard workers,” the report found. One reader summed up an Asian applicant this way: “He’s
quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“He [ Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt] added that the stereotype of the quiet Asian student
is “really a strange notion. My Asian American students are very lively. They take leadership
positions. They’re not at all shy or reticent.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Now as then, a lack of preferences can be a convenient guise for racism. Much as college
administrators justified anti-Jewish policies with ethnic stereotypes — one Yale dean in 1918 termed
the typical Jewish student a “greasy grind” — so Asians are typecast in college admissions offices
as quasi-robots programmed by their parents to ace math and science tests. Asked why Vanderbilt
poured resources into recruiting Jews instead of Asians, a former administator told me, “Asians are very good students, but they don’t provide the kind of intellectual environment that Jewish
students provide.”
. . . . . . . . . .
From chapter 10, “Ending the Preferences of Privilege”:
“Provide equal access for Asian American students and for international students who need
financial aid. If elite colleges were truly committed to socioeconomic diversity, they would regard
the proliferation of outstanding Asian American applicants as an opportunity, not a problem. They
would rush to propel into the higher ranks of American society a group of students who not only
boast outstanding test scores and grades but also are immigrants or immigrants’ children from low-
or middle-income families that sacrificed in hope of a better life for the next generation. Asian
American students also bring a variety of cultures, languages, and religions to stir the campus
melting pot. Colleges should counter anti-Asian bias through sensitivity training sessions and
hiring more Asian American admissions deans, directors, and staff.”
. . . . . . . . . .
HARVARD DISCRIMINATED AGAINST JEWS IN THE PAST AND JEWS HAVE COMPLAINED. OF COURSE, TIMES HAVE CHANGED, SINCE JEWS ARE THE MOST OVERREPRESENTED GROUP AT HARVARD TODAY AT OVER 30% FOR THEIR 2% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION. I NEVER OBJECTED TO THIS FACT. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE A WHOLE DIFFERENT BREED IN ELITE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS TODAY AND ARE DEFINITELY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN ELITE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS AND PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS. THEY ARE THE NEW JEWS ACCORDING TO WSJ’S DANIEL GOLDEN, A HARVARD COLLEGE GRADUATE WHO IS HIMSELF JEWISH AND WHOSE FATHER ATTENDED CCNY. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE CAPPED AT THE IVIES AT 14 to 15% FOR THEIR 4% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION
I have the utmost empathy and sympathy for the Jews of the past because of the discrimination against them based on ethnicity and religion, especially in ADMISSIONS TO AMERICA’S ELITE COLLEGES AND PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, but Asian Americans have taken the place of the old JEWS of the past, because as Dan Golden said in his new book, THE PRICE OF ADMISSIONS, Chap. 7, Asian Americans are the “new Jews” and they need not apply. Now, with all due respect for Jews, Asian Americans (East, South East, and South Asian) are not Jews, nor do they want to be Jews, OLD OR NEW. Asian Americans should also not be discriminated against in admissions based on race and ethnicity. I think that’s simple enough, isn’t it?
E,
While your point obviously stands, that Asian Americans should not be discrimnated against in admissions, the problem you face is that the admissions officers don’t believe that they are discriminating against Asian Americans! Or whites, because they view candidates not as individuals, but as members of a group. And if it is true that Asians are 4% of the population and receive 15% of the slots then that is hardly evidence of bias. In fact, Asian Americans should be grateful to be so “overrepresented” and this should be taken as an example of the benevolence of the admissions office.
“Nobody important” said, “While your point obviously stands, that Asian Americans should not be discrimi nated against in admissions, the problem you face is that the admissions officers don’t believe that they are discriminating against Asian Americans! Or whites, because they view candidates not as individuals, but as members of a group. And if it is true that Asians are 4% of the population and receive 15% of the slots then that is hardly evidence of bias. In fact, Asian Americans should be grateful to be so “overrepresented” and this should be taken as an example of the benevolence of the admissions office.”
You can’t be serious. Are you kidding??
WHY SHOULDN’T EVERYONE IN AMERICA COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS AND NOT ONLY ASIAN AMERICANS??
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which group it is directed against, even Asian Americans, one of America’s smallest minority groups, seemingly politically insignificant. They are dubbed the “new Jews”
I thought we all still live the the USA, and not in Communist China. By the way, thank God that we all still live in America.
Read this again.
HARVARD DISCRIMINATED AGAINST JEWS IN THE PAST AND JEWS HAVE COMPLAINED. OF COURSE, TIMES HAVE CHANGED, SINCE JEWS ARE THE MOST OVERREPRESENTED GROUP AT HARVARD TODAY AT OVER 30% FOR THEIR 2% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION. I NEVER OBJECTED TO THIS FACT. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE A WHOLE DIFFERENT BREED IN ELITE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS TODAY AND ARE DEFINITELY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN ELITE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS AND PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL ADMISSIONS. THEY ARE THE NEW JEWS ACCORDING TO WSJ’S DANIEL GOLDEN, A HARVARD COLLEGE GRADUATE WHO IS HIMSELF JEWISH AND WHOSE FATHER ATTENDED CCNY. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE CAPPED AT THE IVIES AT 14 to 15% FOR THEIR 4% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION.
*Quote from, “Asian Students: Not All of Them Are Pre-Med Violinists.”
By Jacques Steinberg
©2003 The New York Times
*When Brown assembled the class of 1987, for example, it admitted 20 percent of all applicants, but only 14 percent of those who identified themselves as Asian. A committee appointed by the Brown trustees ultimately concluded that “Asian-American applicants have been treated unfairly,” and the admission rate of Asians has subsequently pulled relatively even with those of the class as a whole.*
BTW, the second part of this statement is still not true. Asian Americans are *still* being treated unfairly at Brown. Really, nothing has changed over the years. The admissions rate at Brown for Asian Americans *has not* pulled relatively even with those of the class as a whole.
Here is the proof:
Source: 2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald
Brown University Class of ’05
16,500 total applicants
Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances
African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances
Brown accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
Asian Americans applicants to Brown had and still have admission rates ranging between 66 – 70% of the admission rates for whites and even much LOWER than the admissions rates for blacks and Latinos.”
=====================================================
Source: 2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (www.dailypennsylvanian.com):
Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvania’s Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
According to Lee Stetson, Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are “today’s Jews”. With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be “today’s Jews”, or to be limited by quotas.
========================================================
Source: Hillel, The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
http://www.hillel.org/hillel/Hillel_Schools_New.nsf/44257994e40bf4e7852567ec00500a7d/6c4651b283ac812285256dc2005278e5?OpenDocument
Overrepresentation or “monopoly” in American elite colleges?
Jews are overrepresented by a factor of 15 at Harvard (33% for their 2% of the American population). Jews are the most overrepresented group at Harvard and the Ivies, yet you say that Asian Americans are overrepresented. The Asian overrepresentation pales next to Jewish overrepresentation, yet there is no quota or willfull policy to suppress Jewish numbers.
=========================================================
Source: “Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions Decisions at Stanford”, 1995, Stanford U. Press, by Jean H. Fetter, former Director of Admissions at Stanford.
On page 97, she states, “The central fact was that while Asian Americans were being admitted to Stanford in numbers proportionally much larger than their representation in California and the U.S. population, the rate at which they had been admitted have been consistently lower than that for white students. Generally similar conditions have prevailed at other universities. Between 1982 and 1985, Asian Americans applicants to Stanford had admission rates ranging between 66 – 70% of the admission rates for whites.”
This could not be explained by academic/ non-academic ratings for Asian Americans, because the ratings were as good and in many cases, better than any other group, nor from interaction of ethnicity with other factors such as gender or geographic origin. Ms. Fetter denied that there was an implicit quota.
=========================================================
Source: 2/26/01 The New York Times: “Public Lives: Family History Forges Labor Secretary’s Convictions”
[“I know what discrimination is,” says Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao. Then Ms. Chao was recruited to serve on an alumni board for Harvard. That experience, Ms. Chao said, showed her how Harvard’s racial goals for admission meant that Asian-Americans were held back. Even though Asian-Americans had the highest test scores and highest grade-point averages, she said, they had the lowest admission rate because the school did not want to go over its goals for Asian-Americans. (In December 2000, when Harvard admitted 1,105 new students on an early basis for the new freshman class, 18.4 percent were Asian-American, 7.2 percent were Hispanic, 6.1 percent were African-American and 0.8 percent were Native Americans, according to the school’s admissions office.) “The goal concept means you’ll be subject to a higher standard of achievement for admission,” said Ms. Chao, defining the particular glass ceiling and racial discrimination her community has faced since Asians first came to this country.]
==========================================================
Source: “Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process” by Bill Paul, Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1995
The author, Mr. Bill Paul, writes in his discussion on affirmative action and reverse discrimination against Asian Americans on pp. 200-202:
[Thomas Kean, head of Drew University and former Governor of New Jersey, says some colleges have “invisible quotas” for Asian- Americans done in the name of “diversity.” “Nobody wants to talk about this,” he told me in an interview, “but the word is very much around at the most highly-selective colleges. People are practicing that discrimination.”]
==============================================================================================
Asian Students: Not All of Them Are Pre-Med Violinists.
By Jacques Steinberg
©2003 The New York Times
February 2, 2003
As they have tried to diversify their campuses over the last three decades by giving special consideration to blacks and Hispanics, selective universities have struggled to decide whether Asian-Americans fit the definition of “underrepresented” minorities.
Part of the problem is in the very way affirmative action works, some admissions officers say. Colleges often bundle Asian students from various ethnic or racial subgroups — Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Pakistani — into one category, they note, missing the substantial differences in upbringing and education between, say, a first-generation Vietnamese student and a fourth-generation Japanese-American.
Nor do many affirmative action policies distinguish between an applicant from the black middle class, who might have been able to afford SAT tutoring, and a Chinese applicant from a low-performing urban public school.
Ed Hu, who was an admissions officer at Brown University from 1989 to 1994 and was one of the first Chinese-American admissions officers in the Ivy League, said that when he began working at Brown, “there was a lot of stereotyping of Asians” among the staff.
“Admissions people felt that all Asians were the same,” he said, “that they were all pre-med or engineers, and that they all played the piano or the violin.”
For example, he said, many of his colleagues did not know that Filipinos are among the largest subgroups of Asians in the United States, at least by population, yet among the poorest and least educated.
“They were natural candidates for affirmative action,” said Mr. Hu, now a dean at Harvard-Westlake, a private high school in Los Angeles.
Not only weren’t such students given any special advantage in the admissions process, Mr. Hu said, they were often judged against an even harsher standard than white applicants.
When Brown assembled the class of 1987, for example, it admitted 20 percent of all applicants, but only 14 percent of those who identified themselves as Asian. A committee appointed by the Brown trustees ultimately concluded that “Asian-American applicants have been treated unfairly,” and the admission rate of Asians has subsequently pulled relatively even with those of the class as a whole.
The solution, Mr. Hu suggested, rests with admissions officers’ being more open to the notion that Asian-American applicants might face disadvantages, and have valuable contributions to make to a campus.
At Cornell, for example, which does not formally consider Asian-Americans to be underrepresented, Ken Gabard, an admissions officer with 14 years of experience, said he had reached out to immigrants from the Philippines, Laos and Vietnam. In some instances, he said, he has not been daunted if such applicants are less accomplished academically than other Asian-Americans with more advantages.
While Cornell does not disclose its admission rates by ethnicity or race, the undergraduate student body is 16 percent Asian, 5 percent black and 5 percent Hispanic.
“It is always a question of how far you can define distinct groups as meriting special attention,” Mr. Gabard said. “We know that it’s an imperfect system.”
You still haven’t any consistent ground for complaint if you deny objective merit. If merit ‘floats’ on favor, there is no merit standard available to say that Asians aren’t getting what a merit standard would give them. By what standard do your people deserve more, this is what you must answer, otherwise your approach must be stamped: total failure.
John Bolton said,
“You still haven’t any consistent ground for complaint if you deny objective merit. If merit ‘floats’ on favor, there is no merit standard available to say that Asians aren’t getting what a merit standard would give them. By what standard do your people deserve more, this is what you must answer, otherwise your approach must be stamped: total failure.”
Mr. John Bolton, please stop with your two word idiotic responses, such as “total failure” and answer my points, if you are capable of doing so. You are the one who lost in your exchange with Leo Cruz, since you had no answers to his points of arguments. I agree with Leo Cruz here, http://www.discriminations.us/2005/10/the_best_may_not_be_the_bright_1.html
I won’t repeat his points of arguments.
My point point is that Asian American applicants have met or exceeded the definition of “merit”, in every form that it is used today in its totality, despite the preferences given to blacks, Latinos, as well as whites, and yet they have to meet a HIGHER BAR for admissions today, simply because of the use of racial and ethnic group preferences, with the Asian American group as the ONLY NON-PREFEPRRED racial group in admissions today.
Are you kidding me again? You have not answered any of my points.
You seem to have missed my points. “Merit” is defined by those in power to admit in order to favor those in power and their children, and this is not “merit’ in the true sense. The politically correct definition of “merit” for the race preferentialists and race advocates today, such as yourself, Mr. Bolton, is solely based on one’s color or hue of one’s skin, which these Ivy/Elite schools have succumbed to with their their racist admissions practices.This is self-serving or SELFISH on the part of the Ivies. Their admission of 8% blacks, who are under performing, affluent, rich , and beneficiaries of a admissions lower bar is also SELF-SERVING in order to be politically correct by using RACE as the standard for admissions. This does not close or narrow the racial gaps in achievement. Race should not be used as a standard for “merit”. One’s skin color trumps ALL other standards (objective or subjective ones) and holistic criteria used today at these schools for admissions. With all of these standards and criteria for admissions being equal or even higher for Asian applicants on the average, versus black, Latino and even white applicants, Asians are the one who lose, because the use of race and ethnicity as the major determinants in admissions which trump all the other standards, both objective and subjective ones, and the holistic criteria used in admissions to the elite colleges today. Internal studies from Brown and Stanford Universities have shown this to be the case as early as the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when they were accused of race discrimination against Asian Americans by Asian American applicants. Stanford settled their case out of court. Stanford, however increased their Asian American population from 10 to 12% to 25% today, unlike the Ivies, which average 15% asian Americans. By the way, Jewish Americans are about 25 to 35% Jewish, according to the Hilel Foundation for Jewish Life on Campus.
Studies (done internally when charges of bias were presented) from Brown and Stanford have clearly disputed the stereotyped image of an Asian American applicant as being “one dimensional” with no extracurricular activities except for music. This image only existed in the biased views of the some of the admission officers. These studies have shown that there was an unexplained bias in admissions and in fact, the Asian American group appeared better prepared by any standards used, yet had only a 60% to 70% admission rate compared to the white applicant group at Stanford. The President of Stanford could not explain the disparity, but at least she admitted that there was one. Many of the heads and admission officers of the elite schools don’t even acknowledge that the problem even exists. The Asian applicants were better prepared than the white group, by whatever definition of “merit” it used, yet have a lower admission rate.
Stanford’s Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid discovered, after an inquiry, that between 1982 and 1985 Asian Americans were
one-third less likely than whites to be offered admission, even though they were on average better prepared than white applicants. Annual Report of CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in “Campus Report”, November 12, 1986.
Some admissions officials have complained that Asian Americans tend to be lacking in extracurricular and personal qualities, which universities consider along with grades to ensure that they get well-rounded individuals.
But there is no systematic evidence to this; indeed a report by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMI) at Brown, established to investigate charges of anti-Asian discrimination, found such assumptions to
be the result of “cultural bias and stereotypes which prevail in the admissions office.” In the early 1980s, these attitudes contributed to a 14% acceptance rate for Asians, who are on the average the best qualified applicants to Brown, compared to the other students who averaged an acceptance rate of 20%. See Report of CCMI, Brown University, February 1984. Between 1978 and 1986, there was a 430% increase of Asian Americans applying to Brown, but the number of these students remained fairly constant. Grace Tsang, “Equal Access of Asian-Americans”, “Yale Law Journal”, January 1989, pp. 659-78.
Click on:
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5213394
Ivy League universities
Merit in motion
Nov 24th 2005
From The Economist print edition
[But eliminating these practices won’t turn these institutions into a meritocratic mecca because, as Mr Karabel argues, the concept of meritocracy itself is strategic and flexible, and often in outright conflict with egalitarian aims. “Those who are able to define ‘merit’,” he writes, “will almost invariably possess more of it, and those with greater resources—cultural, economic, and social—will generally be able to ensure that the educational system will deem their children more meritorious.” Even today, efforts at Harvard to place more emphasis on the sciences (potentially replacing some wealthier white students with nerdy Asian-Americans) have attracted criticism that they might make the student body too one-dimensional instead of iconoclastic and well-rounded—exactly the same style of disparaging argument used to justify the Jewish quotas of yesteryear.]
Well, the Jewish quotas of yesteryear do not exist anymore and the they replaced by the anti-Asian American quota of today, by the same “Merit in Motion” as defined by the ECONOMIST which justified the quota against the Jews.
Asian Americans are required to meet higher objective standards of achievement, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and a higher holistic criteria than any other group, including blacks, latinos and whites, in order to be admitted. The holistic criteria consists of charcacter, leadership, special talents, athletic skills, awards (Intel Finalists, International Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympiad Gold Medals, national literary and music awards, etc.)motivations, perseverance, and the overcoming of obstacles, such as economic disadvantage and cultural and language differences for Asian Americans, from being one of the smallest racial minorities in America.
I also want to address the last point made by the poster, “nobody important”.
He said, [In fact, Asian Americans should be grateful to be so “overrepresented” and this should be taken as an example of the benevolence of the admissions office.]
This is a most condescending and, if I may add, even racist statement, that I have ever encountered in exchanges or conversations on the issue of discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions to the Ivies/Elites and the professional schools of America.
You are saying that Asian Americans should be “grateful” even though they are discriminated against and required to meet a higher bar for admissions than that of any other racial and ethnic group, including whites. Asian Americans ARE NOT GLUTTONS FOR PUNISHMENT. WHY SHOULD THEY BE PUNISHED? WHY SHOULD THEY BE “GRATEFUL”??? SURELY, YOU DO JEST!!
THE OVERREPRESENTATION OF ASIAN AMERICANS IN THESE SCHOOLS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS IN ADMISSIONS. It is because of this “overrrepresentation” that these schools discriminate against Asian Americans.These schools did EXACTLY the same thing to the Jews in the past, and now they are doing it to the Asians in what is called the new “Yellow Peril” with their DISCRIMINATORY racist limits, caps, and de facto quotas against Asian Americans in admissions. There are no quotas against Jews today. Asian Americans have replaced the Jews in this respect. The Jews are the most overrepresented group in these schools and I have no complaints against this, but the discrimnation Asian Americans face today, is exactly the same discrimination the Jews faced in the past with anti-Jewish quotas, which do not exist today to make them more overrepresented many times over the Asian Americans. These discriminatory quotas SHOULD NOT exist for Asian Americans either, as they were abolished for the Jews.
Asian Americans are capped/limited by real and de facto racial quotas at the elite schools and in America. This action is ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. You should only be subjected to this yourself and you would see how “grateful” you could possibly be to the admissions officers of these elite schools for their “benevolance” towards you. There is the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment for equal access without regard to race, color, religion and creed, as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act that make this kind of discrimination ILLEGAL. There will be more Federal suits and complaints filed by Asian Americans based on these laws in the future, as John Rosenberg has alluded to on his site and post, in addition to the ones filed by Mr. Stanley Ng against the NYC Dept. of Education and the complaint filed with the Office for Civil Rights, US Dept. of Education, by Mr. Jian Li against Princetion U., as John Rosenberg has mentioned on this site.
Every fair minded American should be outraged, regardless of their race, color, religion or creed, against this kind of racial discrimination against one of America’s smallest minority groups, Asian Americans, which is seemingly insignificant politically. In the big picture and the long run, this kind of discrimination affects EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, not only Asian Americans. We should all learn from history with the discrimination against American Jews in admissions. If we, as Americans, do not learn from history, we as Americans, will eventually pay the price, because this kind of racial discrimination diminishes all of America, as a country.
Are you SERIOUS?? Are you for real??
Please click on the commentary on the study by Espenshade at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories
Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain — in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants. The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants’ SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don’t forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.
E,
I’m sorry that you miscontsrued what I wrote. Those were not my ideas, but rather those of the typical “diversity” admissions staff. I was offering my opinion as to how they view under and over representation. As I said, they do not think that they are discriminating against anyone, because the view people as members of groups rather than as individuals. I agree with you that everyone should be judged as individuals and that unfortunately that is not how Asian Americans are being judged.
“nobody important” said,
“I agree with you that everyone should be judged as individuals and that unfortunately that is not how Asian Americans are being judged.”
And I agree with the above. The first step towards this goal is to have a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know. Today, these committees do not ask whether or not an applicant is Jewish, and rightfully so. So then, why should they ask the applicant whether or not they are Asian, White, or Latino. The admissions committees should not ask this.
As an advocate for your people, you have failed most shamefully, by continually redefining merit as racial and family favor. You need to show that Asians are getting less than what they would have by some standard. If you are a moral being, you can answer this question: by what standard? If you do not answer this I am fully entitled to brand your claims, and those of others which do not properly acknowledge human merit, as disgraceful moral failure.
Bolton said,
“As an advocate for your people, you have failed most shamefully, by continually redefining merit as racial and family favor. You need to show that Asians are getting less than what they would have by some standard. If you are a moral being, you can answer this question: by what standard? If you do not answer this I am fully entitled to brand your claims, and those of others which do not properly acknowledge human merit, as disgraceful moral failure.”
I have provided the answers, with overwhelming evidence which is clear and convincing, if and when it is presented in a Federal Court for a law suit.
You have provided ABSOLUTELY nothing for your position, of racial preferences or preferential treatment based on one’s race. color, ethnicity, creed and religion. Your position for preferential treatment based on race is inherently RACIST and ILLEGAL.
Hey Bolton, who are “YOUR PEOPLE”? I have nailed you. You have absolutely no rebuttals to my points. Who gave you the moral high ground? Why are you holier than thou? Please don’t start with the ad hominem attacks with your fluff. Your COMMENTS are laughable.
Again, answer my points of argument, ONE BY ONE.
Your SILENCE and LACK OF REPUTABLE RESPONSES to my points ARE DEAFENING!!
By the way, Bolton, I advocate for the American people and the rights of every individual, without regard to his or her race, color, creed, ethnicity, and religion. I think these rights are protected by the laws are OUR great land, the USA in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ward Connerly suggests that his effort to eliminate racial preferences began with his seeing the widespread discrimination against Asians in the University of California.
Connerly said,[I was born in the Deep South in Louisiana in 1939, and I have seen and experienced racial discrimination in my lifetime. I think it is wrong, and that it denies our country the greatest potential from every person. When I was serving on the Board of Regents of the University of California, it was déjà vu all over again because I saw the discrimination that was visited upon Asian students at Berkeley and UCLA. As the number of Asians, the Chinese and Japanese at Berkeley especially, began to increase, the administration expressed its concern that Berkeley would become “Asian” and all that. My own view is that, I don’t care if an Asian takes every seat if he or she earned the right to be there, and so I moved to get rid of racial discrimination and preferential treatment in the UC System. One thing led to another, and so I expanded to California’s Proposition 209 and before I knew it, I had a second activity in my life that concerned me….]
Please read the following CAREFULLY!
Every fair minded American should be outraged, regardless of their race, color, religion or creed, against this kind of racial discrimination against one of America’s smallest minority groups, Asian Americans, which is seemingly insignificant politically. In the big picture and the long run, this kind of discrimination affects EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, not only Asian Americans. This includes you, Bolton. We should all learn from history with the discrimination against American Jews in admissions. If we, as Americans, do not learn from history, we as Americans, will eventually pay the price, because this kind of racial discrimination diminishes all of America, as a country. If you don’t learn the history lessons of the past, DISCRIMINATION of any kind, towards any group in American will come back and bite you, and it will hurt.
I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know. Today, these committees do not ask whether or not an applicant is Jewish, and rightfully so. So then, why should they ask the applicant whether or not they are Asian, White, or Latino?? The admissions committees should not ask this.
Bolton, Why don’t you answer the questions??
Bolton, I am frankly tired of you, since you have presented NOTHING to the discussion.
E writes:
>>>” If we, as Americans, do not learn from history, we as Americans, will eventually pay the price, because this kind of racial discrimination diminishes all of America, as a country. If you don’t learn the history lessons of the past, DISCRIMINATION of any kind, towards any group in American will come back and bite you, and it will hurt.”
Well, I’ll be. That almost sounds “COBRA-like.” Maybe some of MY debates with you are finally sinking in.
I talk about America’s history of discrimination all the time in here, E. I talk about PRESENT day discrimination as well.
You do realize that some of the SAME people who take issue with ME when I discuss discrimination against African-American, Hispanic-Americans and Native-Americans are teeing off on YOU right now?
Do you see the IRONY, E?
What I’m waiting for, is your FINAL enlightenment: When you see this “color-blind Ameritocracy” for the MYTH that it really is.
Quoting, IMHO, a racial-mercenary like Ward Connerly because he likes to use Asian-Americans as a convenient example is highly-dubious.
The only “color” Ward Connerly cares about, IMHO, is GREEN–the blood-money from pro-white think tank grants that helped make him a multi-millionaire, and if you think THOSE folks have YOUR best interests in mind, I’ve got some Sahara Desert Snowballs in my freezer to sell you.
But hey, E, read this blog thread again if you think the anti-affirmative action types out to reinforce the WMPS in America are the best friends Asian-Americans can have in regards to discrimination.
Let’s see how “objective” you REALLY are on this issue.
–Cobra
Cobra,
“But hey, E, read this blog thread again if you think the anti-affirmative action types out to reinforce the WMPS in America are the best friends Asian-Americans can have in regards to discrimination.”
Now, who might Cobra be referring to now on this blog?
The “new Yellow Peril” has indeed arrived with the race preferentialists such as yourself.
BTW, you have not answered my points on this thread yet. Your silence is more than DEAFENING!!
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
Sauce For The Goose? Glass House Rock Thrower?
We’re still being given special pleading and self-contradiction: impartiality is not be equated with partiality. Merit is still denounced quite illogically as if it were the same as favor given on the basis of group membership. Slanted capsule histories are sloppily dished out, as if it were universally accepted that injustice is just fine so long as ‘everybody does it’. The E-galitarian cannot speak of unequal merit except to deny that it exists, which makes him a very ineffectual special pleader for his minority group. With the concept of merit and impartial justice disallowed, no good representation can be managed for a population which would need more such justice and recognition of merit. Egalitarians can be effective special pleaders for a group which needs quotas to get their share of positions, but not for any others.
HEY COBRA, ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF!!
The “Yellow Peril”: Laws against Chinese Americans
=======================
Excerpt from May 11, 2001 Keynote Address by Ambassador Julia Chang Bloch to Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies 2001 Leadership Academy
History of Racism Against Asian Americans
Perhaps this “perpetual foreigner-syndrome” is so prevalent because it has deep historical roots. From this country’s early days, Asian Americans were thought of as foreign, different, and unable to assimilate.
Over one hundred years ago in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act — the only U.S. law to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race — and renewed the law in 1892 and 1902, and then extended it indefinitely in 1904.
In 1889, the United States Supreme Court upheld the exclusion and expulsion of Chinese from America, and Chinese immigration would remain restricted for the next sixty years. Americans, however, do not differentiate between Asian Americans.
By 1924, with the exception of Filipino “nationals” (the Philippines was annexed by the U.S. as a result of the 1898 Spanish-American War), all Asian immigrants, including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Indians were fully excluded by law, denied citizenship and naturalization, and prevented from marrying Caucasians or owning land.
America fully shut its doors to Asians in 1935, when the Tydings-McDuffie Act placed an annual quota of fifty on Filipino migration, effectively excluding their entry as well. US immigration laws discriminated against Asians until 1965.
As late as 1914, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that citizenship could be denied to foreign-born Asians. Only in response to the civil rights movement, did the US government reverse itself and abolish the national-origins system on immigration.
Until recently, Asian Americans did not enjoy the most basic rights of other Americans, no matter how long we lived in this country. Let me just share a few examples:
In 1854, the California Supreme Court ruled it constitutional that “all people of color” could be excluded from giving evidence in court against white people. This decision was aimed primarily against the Chinese, but, in fact, it made all people of color fair game to persecution and even murder with impunity.
The Geary Act of 1892 stripped the Chinese of any protection in the courts, including denying them bail in habeas corpus cases.
In 1913, the Alien Land Act was enacted forbidding “aliens ineligible to citizenship” — meaning Asians — from purchasing land, and a subsequent act in 1920 prohibited leasing and, even, sharecropping. These laws were not repealed until 1956.
The Chinese gained the right to citizenship in 1943 because China had fought on the side of the Allies in World War II. The Japanese did not gain that right until 1952. Sadly, although many Asian Americans know the terrible history of slavery, few are familiar with our own history of discrimination and persecution in this country.
===========================
5/19/04 Dallas Morning News: “Little-known cases, big impact,”
by Esther Wu
Monday marked the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision, which declared segregated schools unconstitutional.
However, long before the parents of 7-year-old Linda Brown in Topeka, Kan., filed their suit, the parents of another little girl fought to get their daughter into a public school in San Francisco. Historically there hasn’t been much fanfare about the 1885 case of 8-year-old Mamie Tape, which reached the California Supreme Court.
But it was just one of many significant lawsuits filed by Asian-Americans that have affected the lives of all Americans:
• Tape vs. the San Francisco Board of Education and Spring Valley School, 1885. The California Supreme Court ordered the school to admit Mamie Tape, but officials hastily lobbied the state Legislature to pass a provision to create schools for children of Mongolian or Chinese descent. Legislators decreed that when such separate schools exist, the children must not be admitted to any other school. In effect, they introduced the separate but equal doctrine that would eventually lead to the constitutional basis for segregation nationwide. In 1890, Homer A. Plessy challenged a Louisiana law requiring separate train cars for blacks and whites, but U.S. Supreme Court justices – based in part on the Tape decision – ruled that the “separate but equal” facilities were constitutional.
• Gong Lum vs. Rice, 1927. The Supreme Court ruled that a Mississippi school district could legally require a Chinese-American child to attend a black school rather than a white school, applying the “separate but equal” rule that later would be challenged in Brown vs. Board of Education.
• United States vs. Wong Kim Ark; 1898. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government couldn’t take away a person’s birthright. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted Chinese immigrants from entering this country and denied them citizenship. Before that act was repealed, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, left the United States and upon his return was denied entry on the grounds he was no longer a citizen. The court ruled the government could not deny Mr. Wong his citizenship.
• Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 1886. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a San Francisco ordinance aimed at restricting the location of Chinese laundries. The justices said the ordinance targeted a racial minority and therefore violated the constitutional rights of equal protection under the law.
• Lau vs. Nichols, 1973. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco school system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying non-English-speaking Chinese students the opportunity to fully participate in a public education. The justices said providing students with the same books; teachers and curriculum did not necessarily ensure student’s equal opportunities if instructions were in a language students could not understand. The case would help pave the way for English as a Second Language programs.
Unlike the previous cases, a recent ruling by a Tennessee judge involving a Chinese immigrant couple has drawn concern from Asian-American civil rights groups.
In Baker vs. He, a state district judge ruled last week that Jack and Casey Luo He were unfit parents and awarded custody of their 5-year-old daughter to her foster parents, Jerry and Louise Baker. The Hes, who have custody of their two younger children, said they had given temporary custody of their oldest child to the Bakers while they were undergoing financial difficulties. The Bakers said the Hes abandoned their daughter.
While there were many factors in this case, the judge noted that Mrs. He could not speak English. He further noted that the couple – which may be deported over immigration issues – might take their daughter back to China, where there is a “one-child-per-family” policy.
=============================
The following case is one of the MOST IMPORTANT US SUPREME COURT CASES WON BY A CHINESE AMERICAN BORN IN THE USA AFFECTING ALL ANERICANS, INCLUDING YOU COBRA!
http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/history_heritage/wu_kimwongark_asiancitizenship.asp
Born in the U.S.A.
The landmark legal case of Wong Kim Ark, and how Asian-Pacific Americans won the right to be Americans
By Frank H. Wu, Wayne State University Law School
Like most Americans, I have almost always taken my citizenship for granted. But like some Americans, I have had my citizenship challenged often enough to realize that I should care about its origins. Although I have always tried to assimilate as much as possible and could hardly have done otherwise, I have from time to time been disappointed that the efforts to conform are not enough for those who define membership in our democracy on the basis of race rather than principle.
I was born a citizen, but birth alone did not always confer citizenship. All of us who care about our civil rights should realize that we owe a measure of our shared equality to an individual named Wong Kim Ark.
In the 1920s, the Supreme Court confirmed that Japanese and Asian Indians were not “free white persons” and thus could not naturalize
More than a century ago in California, Wong took on the federal government in an effort to win his right to remain in his homeland. His legal case ended up in the Supreme Court. His victory shows how, despite recurring prejudice, our country can remain true to its ideals. It is worthwhile to reflect on our history, not to condemn the past by contemporary standards, but to understand how we came to where we are now. There are valuable lessons in these forgotten episodes.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, Chinese immigrants began to arrive here. They were recruited to work on Southern plantations as well as Eastern factories. On Southern plantations, they were touted as replacements for freed slaves. In Eastern factories, they were used as strikebreakers as unions based on ethnicity were starting to form. Famously, more than ten thousand of them helped build the transcontinental railroad. When they finished the job, they were not allowed to join the celebration at Promontory Point, Utah. Afterward, they were fired.
Remarkably, however, it was during the period of Chinese Exclusion that birthright citizenship emerged as a constitutional doctrine. In frontier towns such as San Francisco, Chinese laborers represented more than a quarter of the population. With an economic downturn, whites – many of whom themselves were recent arrivals to the United States – saw non-whites as competition in racial terms. Politicians began to agitate against them, shouting the rallying cry, “The Chinese Must Go!” Even progressive leaders such as Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, argued that it was “meat or rice,” suggesting that Caucasians could not succeed against Asians and had no choice but to limit their entry.
In 1882, heeding warnings that Asians might overwhelm the West Coast or make it racially mixed, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. As the name of the bill suggested, it prohibited most people of Chinese descent from coming to this country with only limited exceptions. Later, Congress would extend the policy to create an Asiatic Barred Zone. In the 1920s, the Supreme Court confirmed that Japanese and Asian Indians were not “free white persons” and thus could not naturalize.
I believe that birthright citizenship guarantees our most basic right, to remain in the land of our origin. It signals both that we belong to the nation and that the nation belongs to us
After Exclusion, contrary to images of a submissive subculture isolated from the mainstream, Chinese communities engaged in civil disobedience in the best traditions of American liberty. Chinese who were already present when Exclusion passed were allowed to stay. They could sponsor their children as immigrants under an exception to the act. So they brought in “paper sons,” men who claimed falsely to be their descendants. Chinese communities also organized themselves to protest their exclusion through politics and lawsuits. The Wong case was only one example.
Wong Kim Ark had sued to be re-admitted to the birthplace, after taking a trip to China. He argued that by virtue of his birth on its soil he was a citizen of the United States, even though his parents were racially barred from achieving that status.
In opposing Wong, the federal government argued in its court briefs, “There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be scarred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage.” The Solicitor General asked, “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution to exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation?” He answered, “If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
Rejecting these racial arguments, the Court based its ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision of the Constitution is familiar as the source of “equal protection of the laws.” The Court gave a literal interpretation to its opening lines, that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” By doing so, the Supreme Court united racial minority groups. For the Fourteenth Amendment had been passed to overturn the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, which declared that blacks were not citizens. Thus, because African Americans were citizens, Asian immigrants could be citizens as well – and vice versa.
Abolishing birthright citizenship would ensure inherited privilege: an individual would be bound by the status of their parents
Today’s debate over birthright citizenship brings the connection full circle. Opponents of birthright citizenship have focused on Latino immigrants. They have said that Mexican women wait until they are about to go into labor, and then cross the border to have American children, supposedly to gain government entitlements. This spectacular racial stereotype is the symbolic sister to the “welfare queen” in the Eighties – the African American single woman who has children solely to obtain public benefits.
With anxieties about immigration, some demagogues have renewed calls for a racial vision of United States citizenship. They forthright in their claim that this is a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation by heritage. Other writers have tried to pit communities of color against one another, suggesting that African Americans should oppose immigration, and immigrants should oppose affirmative action. Yet African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and everyone else should see through Wong Kim Ark that the citizenship status we enjoy depends on the citizenship of others. Abolishing birthright citizenship would reinforce a caste system and inherited privilege: an individual would be bound by the status of her parents and those whose ancestors arrived earlier would have a stronger claim to the nation.
I believe that birthright citizenship guarantees our most basic right, to remain as equals in the land founded for liberty. The law signals both that we belong to the nation and that the nation belongs to us.
Bolton said,
“We’re still being given special pleading and self-contradiction: impartiality is not be equated with partiality. Merit is still denounced quite illogically as if it were the same as favor given on the basis of group membership. Slanted capsule histories are sloppily dished out, as if it were universally accepted that injustice is just fine so long as ‘everybody does it’. The E-galitarian cannot speak of unequal merit except to deny that it exists, which makes him a very ineffectual special pleader for his minority group. With the concept of merit and impartial justice disallowed, no good representation can be managed for a population which would need more such justice and recognition of merit. Egalitarians can be effective special pleaders for a group which needs quotas to get their share of positions, but not for any others.”
Bolton, you must think you are living in Communist China or the People’s Republic of China, and certainly not the United States of America. Hey, Bolton, you haven’t provided a single reasonable response to any of my previous posts.
I am tired of you, as well as the other race preferentialist on this blog, Cobra. You have been NAILED by yours truly, “E” and by “Leo Cruz” on these discussion threads.
The bottom line is ONE CAN DEFINE MERIT HOWEVER ONE WANTS TO DEFINE MERIT, BUT ONE MUST LEAVE RACE, ETHNICITY, AND RELIGION OUT OF THE DEFINITION OF MERIT. You are in denial.
My point point is that Asian American applicants have met or exceeded the definition of “merit”, in every form that it is used today in its totality, despite the preferences given to blacks, Latinos, as well as whites, and yet they have to meet a HIGHER BAR for admissions today, simply because of the use of racial and ethnic group preferences, with the Asian American group as the ONLY NON-PREFEPRRED racial group in admissions today.
The politically correct definition of “merit” for the race preferentialists, race advocates and RACISTS today, such as yourself, Mr. Bolton, is solely based on one’s color or hue of one’s skin, which these Ivy/Elite schools have succumbed to with their their racist admissions practices.
Asian Americans are required to meet higher objective standards of achievement, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and a higher holistic criteria than any other group, including blacks, latinos and whites, in order to be admitted. The holistic criteria consists of charcacter, leadership, special talents, athletic skills, awards (Intel Finalists, International Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympiad Gold Medals, national literary and music awards, etc.) motivations, perseverance, and the overcoming of obstacles, such as economic disadvantage and cultural and language differences for Asian Americans, from being one of the smallest racial minorities in America. They are also the objects of RACISM or the “new Yellow Peril” today, from the race preferentialists or RACISTS, such as yourself, Bolten, and Cobra.
The admissions committees can use any definition of merit they want to, but LEAVE RACE, ETHNICITY, and RELIGION OUT OF THE DEFINITION OF MERIT.
I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know. Today, these committees do not ask whether or not an applicant is Jewish, and rightfully so. So then, why should they ask the applicant whether or not they are Asian, Black, White, or Latino?? The admissions committees should not ask this.
Bolton, Why don’t you answer the questions??
Bolton, I am frankly tired of you, since you have presented NOTHING to the discussion. You are full of FLUFF. You are now flinging HORSE MANURE, Bolton.
Please reread my posts and enlighten yourself, and then please go away. Thank you in advance.
E writes:
>>>”Now, who might Cobra be referring to now on this blog?”
The majority of the posters here don’t seem to give a fig about the “plight of the Asian-American”, anymore than they give a fig about the plights of any other minority group.
You DO understand that angry right winged white conservatives not only form the base of the anti-affirmative action movement, but stood against non-white progress at nearly every turn throughout American History, right E?
You DO understand that angry right winged white conservatives were behind the vast majority of all that anti-Chinese legislation you catalogued so throughly? It certainly wasn’t African-Americans holding your ancestors back.
If you DO understand all this, then WHY are you so eager to THROW IN with angry right winged white conservatives? I mean, I completely understand why Ward Connerly throws in with them;
He’s getting paid…WELL paid, at that.
At what cost does your alliegence to angry right winged white conservatives come?
E writes:
>>>”BTW, you have not answered my points on this thread yet. Your silence is more than DEAFENING!!”
E, I actually took the time to respond to your points. Late night and warm coccoa later–
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/shelby_steele_on_obama_and_oth.html#comment-804973
Have fun with it. I sure did!
–Cobra
Hey Cobra,
Obama is an Affirmative Action baby:
Here’e my previous post on this, http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR HARVARD LAW REVIEW, ESSENTIALLY AN HONOR SOCIETY, IS TAINTED WITH RACIAL PREFERENCES FAVORING APPLICANTS BASED ON SKIN COLOR
Cobra said,
“OK, perhaps in your zeal to discredit and attack Senator Obama (you would have the reader believe that graduating from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude was a mark of SHAME), perhaps you might read a little more about the process for selecting a President of the Review:”
======================
BLACKS ARE GIVEN A BOOST AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS TO HARVARD LAW REVIEW BASED ON THEIR SKIN COLOR.
In my opinion, this process demeans every black, if there are any, who are able to meet the standards for admission to Law Review that the rest of the group has met in gaining admission. If anything, this policy presents serious doubts regarding every black who is admitted, even though he/she may have met the minimal requirements, including getting magna cum laude as a requirement. The Latin honor of magna cum laude is a meritorious one, but admissions into Harvard Law Review is not necessarily meritorious, because, race based AA is used for blacks, even for magna cum laude blacks.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/membership.shtml
2007 Harvard Law Review Membership Selection Policies
Excerpts:
“In recent years, the number of students completing the competition has ranged from 200 to 255. Between 41 and 43 students are invited to join the Review each year.”
“Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis. Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review’s affirmative action policy.”
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY AND A DISCRETIONARY BASIS ARE USED FOR BLACKS GIVING THEM PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED SOLELY ON SKIN COLOR IN THEIR ADMISSIONS TO HARVARD LAW REVIEW.
This means the whole selection process is TAINTED, because selection is based on race with de facto racial quotas.
Again, Obama was magna cum laude, but SO WHAT?
There are many magna cum laude and summa cum laude whites and Asians, who were more qualified and were denied admissions to Law Review in this ZERO SUM GAME based on race preferences.
The ONLY WAY to erase these doubts that the readers/posters have is to ELIMINATE the policy of race preferences in admissions to Harvard Law Review. The selection process is absolutely LUDICROUS!
You cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time, Cobra.
Thank God, the Nobel Prizes in Science and Medicine or the Lasker Awards in Medical Research are not given with a race based Affirmative Action policy favoring a winner with the preferred skin color. God help us all if this happens.
BTW, Obama is an Affirmative Action baby, because he was not a stellar student and received race preferences in his admissions to Columbia College, as well as Harvard Law School. Please reread my previous postings.
Obama’s election as the President of the Harvard Law Review is likely due more to his political skills than his academic skills over the other candidates.
========================
Cobra also said, [The majority of the posters here don’t seem to give a fig about the “plight of the Asian-American”, anymore than they give a fig about the plights of any other minority group.]
SO WHAT???????????
This does not prove that my stance on the issue is not morally correct and legal as per the laws of the land, according to the US Constitution with the 14th Amendment, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
You obviously have not read this:
http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/history_heritage/wu_kimwongark_asiancitizenship.asp
Born in the U.S.A.
The landmark legal case of Wong Kim Ark, and how Asian-Pacific Americans won the right to be Americans
By Frank H. Wu, Wayne State University Law School
Quote:
[Rejecting these racial arguments, the Court based its ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision of the Constitution is familiar as the source of “equal protection of the laws.” The Court gave a literal interpretation to its opening lines, that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” By doing so, the Supreme Court united racial minority groups. For the Fourteenth Amendment had been passed to overturn the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, which declared that blacks were not citizens. Thus, because African Americans were citizens, Asian immigrants could be citizens as well – and vice versa.]
The anti-Asian American quotas WILL BE OVERTURNED again in the US Supreme Court, if need be, Cobra. you can bet on this. Yes indeed, it is the coming of the “new Yellow Peril”, co-incidentally the name of this thread, especially with your race preferentialist view in favor of blacks.
Cobra, you are full of IT.
Cobra said,
“See? I went through your points. Refuted them all.”
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
You have not refuted anything, because I INCLUDED whites, as well, as blacks in my condemnation of race based AA, including “Affirmative Action of affluent whites”, as Daniel Golden has written about in his book, the Price of Admission.
Your stance is pure HYPOCRISY. You cannot justify one injustice, favoritism for whites with another, favoritism for blacks, based solely on skin color.
You have not “won” anything. You have not cited any double blind reputable studies to back up any of your ridiculous assertions or so called “refutations”. You are simply flinging HORSE MANURE! You are one SINGLE ANGRY DELUSIONAL INDIVIDUAL WITH YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Reread this thread:
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
Sauce For The Goose? Glass House Rock Thrower?
Why don’t you address my points one by one? I am still waiting. I listed them for you. Your silence on each point IS DEAFENING!!
1. SIMPLY, BLACKS MUST CHANGE THEIR CULTURE FROM WITHIN. NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO EFFECT CHANGE UNLESS BLACKS CHANGE THEMSELVES CULTURALLY FROM WITHIN. THE CULTURE IS A SELF-DESTRUCTIVE ONE WITH BLACK ON BLACK CRIME, 90% OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS, ABSENT FATHERS, ETC..
2. NO ONE IS “ENTITLED TO” OR “DESERVED” A SPOT BASED ON A RACIAL PREFERENCE. NOT ASIAN AMERICANS, NOT BLACK AMERICANS, NOT WHITE AMERICANS, NOT LATINO AMERICANS, NOT A BLACK OBAMA, NOT A WHITE OBAMA, NOT A HALF WHITE OBAMA, and NOT A HALF BLACK OBAMA. YOUR SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT BASED ON RACE IS SIMPLY ASTOUNDING!
3. ADMISSIONS SHOULD BE RACE BLIND, ETHNIC GROUP BLIND AND COLOR BLIND. I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE RACE OF OBAMA IN ADMISSIONS TO ELITE SCHOOLS AND THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES SHOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THE RACE OF OBAMA. BUT THEY DID KNOW, AND WITH THEIR RACE BASED AA ADMISSIONS PROCESS, THESE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES GAVE OBAMA RACIAL PREFERENCES, IN ADMISSIONS, OR A LEG UP AND A TREMENDOUS BOOST
4. RACE PREFERENCES of any kind are immoral and illegal. This holds true if the beneficiaries are persons with white, black, brown, yellow, red, purple OR ONE DROP OF BLACK BLOOD. You are so full of fluff and go off in tangents. You keep playing the race card and the victim which will be the cause of your complete demise.
5. Race preferences for blacks DO NOT WORK TO CLOSE THE RACIAL GAPS IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT. RACE PREFERENCES AND RACE BASED AA DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD FOR BLACKS. In fact, since the era of race based AA, these gaps have widen.
FACTS:
Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white/Asian children from families below the poverty line.
Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white/Asian children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
6. Race preferences do not work. Race preferences did not work in Nazi Germany in the past and they also do not work in present day Bosnia.
7. Race based AA is the embodiment of the taint of racial preference. Abolish race preferences and race based AA, and you eliminate the DOUBT from everyone, INCLUDING AFRICAN AMERICANS THEMSELVES, by whatever definition one defines “black” or African American, including the blacks with the “one drop of blood theory” definition.
8. The greater challenge is to stop seeing people as shades and start knowing them for who they are.
9. BLACKS CAN SUCCEED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF MERIT.
You have not answered or countered any of my points.
You said, “And run around touting black collumnists (SIC) who self-immolate like Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter without posting THEIR SAT scores.”
Here you make another ridiculous assertion. Why don’t you post their SAT scores, as well as their grades?
BTW, anecdotes and exceptions to the rule DO NOT MAKE THE RULE. I am referring to group studies, not anecdotes and exceptions to the rule. I again say to your incessant ranting and raving based solely on anecdotes and outrageous assertions, SO WHAT??? You have not presented any evidence based on research, not one iota, to refute my points. ARE YOU FOR REAL?
Please read #9 again.
9. BLACKS CAN SUCCEED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF MERIT.
Here’s food for thought.
http://www.arthurhu.com/index/afact.htm
Hu’s Laws of Affirmative Action
(1) No two groups are equal unless they are stastically identical
(2) The level of inequality goes up with the level of selectivity
(3) The only way to impose equality is to use different selection levels, and amount of difference goes up with the level of selection
These laws are upheld for almost every observable case of affirmative action.
The Politically Correct Laws of Affirmative Action
1) All groups are naturally equal in the absence of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
2) Any differences are due to racism by the White Race (TM) and only the White Race (TM), in particular, religious, rich, conservative straight white males, can cause these differences. For differences between classes, see Karl Marx.
3) Affirmative Action does not require any preferences for any group at any level for any group.
These laws are consistent with any orthodox piece ever written about or defending affirmative action.
Top 10 most stupid defenses of affirmative action
1 – Affirmative Action is not racial preference. But they won’t
tolerate a ban on preferences. And if it’s unfair to not attack
veterans and alumni preferences, then doesn’t that prove that it is
also preferential?
2 – Affirmative Action is not quotas. But the only acceptable
evidence of discrimination is numerical quotas – “minorities are
under-represented”. No other criterion – test scores, grades,
experience are acceptable if they don’t result in diversity.
3 – Affirmative Action does not lower standards of excellence. But
the only standard of excellence that has any value is skin color and
ethnicity. The same people who say that there are no differences in
standards often refer to MINIMAL, not average standards.
4 – Affirmative Action does not admit unqualified people. But it is
admitting lesser qualified people. This is a circular defintion if
you define minimally qualified by the worst person hired. Minimally
is not equally or best qualified.
5 – Affirmative Action is not reverse discrimination. Some cite that
only whites can be racist since only they have power. They say
that it is impossible to discriminate against whites, even if a
program completely excludes whites, or causes whites to be
under-represented. Many admit that affirmative action is preference
for some races, which is by the dictionary defintion, discrimination.
6 – Discrimination still exists. It will always exist. But
discrimination against innocent parties does nothing to eliminate
discrimination against minorities, it only creates more
discrimination, and affirmative action is discrimination sanctioned
by law.
7 – Selection without regard to race amounts to unfair discrimination.
This is the most outrageously and blatant twisting of the word
discrimination, which used to mean selection with race AS a factor.
The definition of discrimination is now unequal outcomes, as opposed
to unequal treatment.
8 – No white man has ever been discriminated against. There are books
and newspapers full of the stuff, but it is rarely reported, and when
it is challenged, they often lose because the courts often rule
discrimination against Whites to be legal.
You did not refute ANYTHING. You are still flinging HORSE MANURE!!
Dan Golden has written a series of Pulitzer Winning articles on “AA for affluent whites” in elite college admissions. Sadly to say, the *evil* and *immoral* nature of admissions in elite private colleges and elite preps, is also determined by color solely, as in “AA for blacks or browns” or “AA for affluent whites”. The Asian Americans, or “yellows” are the only non-preferred group in admissions, receiving, “negative action” as opposed to AA for whites or blacks and browns. Asian American applicants don’t need either. They just need a fair and just process, not based on race and skin color, with the process being RACE AND ETHNIC GROUP BLIND. Golden is also also aware of the Espenshade study of preferential treatment in admissions, among other studies. I do suggest that you write him, if you disagree with anything he has written, or read his book, “The Price of Admission”.
Click on the following to read WSJ’s Dan Golden’s Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles on these matters.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PulitzerDG04052004.htm?mod=home_journal_links
Golden also has a chapter about the discrimination against Asian Ams who have to meet a higher standard for admissions (SAT scores 50 to 100 points higher than the average) and a higher holistic criteria (motivations, creativity, ECs, overcoming obstacles and life experiences). He states that Asian Americans faced the same discrimination Jews did. Asians faced a HIGHER bar for admissions. He talks about the stereotypes of Asians , which he states “that if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Click on the following link to listen to Golden’s interview on his book, The Price of Admission.
http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20060906/pod-wsjgolden/pod-wsjgolden.mp3
He talks about legacy, sports, and rich and famous VIP preferences in admissions to the Ivies.
Dan Golden has a chapter about the discrimination against Asian Ams who have to meet a higher standard of admissions (SAT scores as much as 125 points higher) and a higher holistic criteria (motivations, creativity, ECs). He states that Asian American faced the same discrimination Jews did. Asians faced a higher bar. He talks about the stereotypes of Asians , which he states “that if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Sports helps rich affluent whites, not URMs, and not poor whites in elite college admissions in sports such as crew, squash, fencing, etc., in preps such as Groton and Andover.
From Daniel Golden’s The Price of Admission, Chapter 7, “The New Jews, Asian
Americans Need Not Apply”:
“In 1990, federal investigators concluded that UCLA’s graduate department in mathematics
had discriminated against Asian applicants.”
“……… most elite universities have maintained a triple standard in college admissions,
setting the bar highest for Asians, next for whites, and lowest for blacks and Hispanics.
According to a 2004 study by three Princeton researchers, an Asian American applicant
needs to score 50 points higher on the SAT than other applicants just to have the same chance
of admission to an elite university. (Being an alumni child, by contrast, confers a 160-point
advantage.) Yale records show that entering Asian American freshmen averaged a 1493
SAT score in 1999-2000, 1496 in 2000-2001, and 1482 in 2001-2. For the same three years,
the average for white freshmen was about 40 points lower. Black and Hispanic freshmen
lagged another 100-125 points below whites. A Yale spokesman attributed the Asian-white
gap to more whites being recruited athletes, and said Asians and whites are held to the same
academic standards.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Federal investigators also turned up stereotyping by Harvard admissions evaluators. Possibly
reflecting a lack of cultural understanding, Harvard evaluators ranked Asian American candidates
on average below whites in “personal qualities.” In comments written in applicants’ files, Harvard
admissions staff repeatedly described Asian Americans as “being quiet/shy, science/math oriented,
and hard workers,” the report found. One reader summed up an Asian applicant this way: “He’s
quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“He [ Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt] added that the stereotype of the quiet Asian student
is “really a strange notion. My Asian American students are very lively. They take leadership
positions. They’re not at all shy or reticent.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Now as then, a lack of preferences can be a convenient guise for racism. Much as college
administrators justified anti-Jewish policies with ethnic stereotypes — one Yale dean in 1918 termed
the typical Jewish student a “greasy grind” — so Asians are typecast in college admissions offices
as quasi-robots programmed by their parents to ace math and science tests. Asked why Vanderbilt
poured resources into recruiting Jews instead of Asians, a former administator told me, “Asians are very good students, but they don’t provide the kind of intellectual environment that Jewish
students provide.”
. . . . . . . . . .
From chapter 10, “Ending the Preferences of Privilege”:
“Provide equal access for Asian American students and for international students who need
financial aid. If elite colleges were truly committed to socioeconomic diversity, they would regard
the proliferation of outstanding Asian American applicants as an opportunity, not a problem. They
would rush to propel into the higher ranks of American society a group of students who not only
boast outstanding test scores and grades but also are immigrants or immigrants’ children from low-
or middle-income families that sacrificed in hope of a better life for the next generation. Asian
American students also bring a variety of cultures, languages, and religions to stir the campus
melting pot. Colleges should counter anti-Asian bias through sensitivity training sessions and
hiring more Asian American admissions deans, directors, and staff.”
Cobra asked,
[If you DO understand all this, then WHY are you so eager to THROW IN with angry right winged white conservatives? I mean, I completely understand why Ward Connerly throws in with them;
He’s getting paid…WELL paid, at that.
At what cost does your alliegence to angry right winged white conservatives come?]
I have not aligned myself with any side, right or left, white or black. You are so quick with your labels, that you have absolutely no credibility at all.
Again, your stance is pure HYPOCRISY. You cannot justify one injustice, favoritism for whites with another, favoritism for blacks, based solely on skin color.
Here is the “new Yellow Peril” at Harvard College with de facto quotas against Asian Americans applicants.
Asian American applicants, for the Class of 2009, were 23% of Harvard’s SCEA (Single Choice Early Action) total applicant pool, but only 18% of Harvard’s admitted students from SCEA, were Asian Americans. Asian Americans are accepted to Harvard at a much lower rate than whites and at 1/2 the acceptance rate of blacks.
The Asian American percentage of the matriculated students is 18%. The Asian American percentage of Harvard’s applicant pool is over 23%.Asian Americans should be at least 23% of Harvard and more, if it were not for the anti-Asian quota. Harvard is 25% to 30% Jewish for their 2% of the American population.
Asian Americans have the least chance or odds of admission to Harvard due to race preferences in its admissions process. This represents a de facto quota against Asian Americans. Asian Americans represent the only non-preferred racial or ethnic group in Harvard admission. They are today’s Jews in the admissions process with caps on their numbers. There are no more quotas against Jews today. Read the book, “The Chosen”, by Karabel regarding discriminating and limiting quotas previously used against Jews in the Ivies, especially Harvard.
The following data proves that Asian Americans have the LOWEST admit rate to Harvard.
Please click on:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/11.17/03-apps.html
From the Harvard Gazette, 11/17/05
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.16/03-admit.html
From the Harvard Gazette, 12/16/04
For the Class of 2009;
[Nearly 18 percent of the admitted students are Asian American (20.7 percent last year), 8.7 percent are African American (6.9 percent last year), 3.4 percent are Hispanic (2.3 percent last year), 2 percent Mexican American (2.9 percent last year), 0.7 percent Native American (0.8 percent last year), and 0.9 percent Puerto Rican (1.7 percent last year).]
These are the actual racial numbers/percentages for Harvard’s admitted early action applicants from the Harvard Gazzette, 12/16/04. For the Class of 2009, 23% of the early applicants were Asian Americans (from the Harvard Gazette, 11/17/05), but only 18% of the admitted early applicants were Asian Americans, where as 5.2% of the early applicants were African American (from the Harvard Gazette, 11/17/05), but 8.7% of the admitted early applicants were African Americans.
Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rate of any racial or ethnic group, including whites, because of racial preferences.
Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.
By lowering the admissions standards for URMs (underrepresented minorities, blacks, Latinos, etc.), these schools raise the admissions standards for Asians. Whites are also admitted with lower standards than Asians, on the average, but higher than that of URMs.
Asians, with their overall higher standards for admissions, as an applicant group, on the average relative to the other groups, including whites, are used to compensate for the lowered standards for the admission of the other groups.
E writes:
>>>”The Asian American percentage of the matriculated students is 18%. The Asian American percentage of Harvard’s applicant pool is over 23%.Asian Americans should be at least 23% of Harvard and more, if it were not for the anti-Asian quota. Harvard is 25% to 30% Jewish for their 2% of the American population.”
I’m going to take time out HERE to remind my anti-affirmative action type friends about all the times I was MALIGNED on this blog for even alluding to “proportionate representation” when it came to disparities regarding African-Americans.
Where are you folks today? You’re letting E get away with this? Does E’s repeated pasting of the SAME three pages of propaganda intimidate you conservatives THAT much?
Watch out, John. It appears the faithful are starting to backslide on you. E’s line here is particularly interesting:
“…Harvard is 25% to 30% Jewish for their 2% of the American population.”
John Rosenberg, what do YOU think E is getting at with that statement?
I mean, it’s not a wild assumption that E could believe there are “too many” African-Americans at Harvard (a private institution), but that line hits a little close to YOUR home, does it not?
The funny thing about statistics and percentages is that anybody can use them to support an argument.
>>>”For the first time in Harvard’s history, women comprise more than 50 percent of the students admitted to the freshman class.
“This milestone is a long way from the 4-to-1 ratio of males to females in the
1960s,” said William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid.
“We are grateful to the visionaries at Harvard and Radcliffe who instituted equal access admission for women in the 1970s, as well as to faculty, students, staff, and alumni/ae who have worked so hard over the years to recruit outstanding women to the College.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.08/03-admissions.html
What? How can this be? This is OUTRAGEOUS, isn’t it, E? And it gets WORSE!
>>>”The Class of 2008 was selected from a pool of 19,750 applicants, the second largest total in Harvard’s history. Last year’s record 20,987 was reached in part by more liberal early admissions guidelines at a number of selective colleges, including Harvard. While the Early Action application numbers this year decreased by more than 3,700, Regular Action numbers bounced back to produce another large applicant group.
Admitted students were notified April 1 by letter and by e-mail.
Women outnumbered men by only three: 1,016 to 1,013.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.08/03-admissions.html
Now, doing some quick math here, E–that’s a little over 10% of ALL APPLICANTS actually got accepted into the freshmen class at Harvard, and despite that fact:
>>>”Records were set for the percentages of Asian Americans (18.9 percent), African Americans (10.3 percent), and Latinos (9.5 percent). Native Americans will comprise nearly 1 percent.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.08/03-admissions.html
But what about the FOREIGN students, E?
>>>”Foreign citizens number 166, up slightly from last year’s 161. As usual, a significant number of incoming students will bring an international perspective, including Americans who have lived abroad, 81 U.S. dual citizens, and 81 U.S. permanent residents. Together, foreign citizens, U.S. duals, and U.S. permanent residents comprise 16.2 percent of the class, compared with 15.4 percent last year.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.08/03-admissions.html
Do you see your dilemna, E? You’re another victim of “Gratzification”. Instead of looking at the overall admission practice and philosophy of the school’s administration, which involves a variety of different criteria, you created a SCAPE GOAT.
The problem is, this is HARVARD, where:
>>>”By standard measures of academic talent, including test scores and academic performance in school, this year’s applicant pool is impressive. For example, 56 percent of the candidates scored 1,400 or higher on SATs; 2,700 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT mathematics test; nearly 2,000 scored 800 on their SAT verbal test; and 2,800 are valedictorians of their high school classes.”
In other words, PERFECT SAT’s don’t guarantee your acceptance. Being Valedictorian doesn’t guarantee your acceptance.
Who do you think you’re trying to fool here, E?
I know–I know. You’re going to call me “fluff” and re-paste a list of anti-black propaganda for the fourth time, while claiming I can’t respond to it. But before that, answer this if you dare–
Do you believe a NON-Asian can score over 1400 on their SAT’s?
Do you believe a NON-Asian can be a class valedictorian?
What criteria would YOU use to fill a class with 2,029 spots with an applicant pool of nearly 20,000 academic over-acheivers?
–Cobra
Hey Cobra,
I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know. Today, these committees do not ask whether or not an applicant is Jewish, and rightfully so. So then, why should they ask the applicant whether or not they are Asian, Black, White, or Latino?? The admissions committees should not ask this.
Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rate of any racial or ethnic group, including whites, because of racial preferences.
Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.
By lowering the admissions standards for URMs (underrepresented minorities, blacks, Latinos, etc.), these schools raise the admissions standards for Asians. Whites are also admitted with lower standards than Asians, on the average, but higher than that of URMs.
Asians, with their overall higher standards for admissions, as an applicant group, on the average relative to the other groups, including whites, are used to compensate for the lowered standards for the admission of the other groups.
I have not aligned myself with any side, right or left, white or black, Jew or Gentile. You are so quick with your labels, that you have absolutely no credibility at all.
Again, your stance is pure HYPOCRISY. You cannot justify one injustice, favoritism for whites with another, favoritism for blacks, based solely on skin color.
You are shoveling HORSE MANURE.
You obviously have not read this:
http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/history_heritage/wu_kimwongark_asiancitizenship.asp
Born in the U.S.A.
The landmark legal case of Wong Kim Ark, and how Asian-Pacific Americans won the right to be Americans
By Frank H. Wu, Wayne State University Law School
Quote:
[Rejecting these racial arguments, the Court based its ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision of the Constitution is familiar as the source of “equal protection of the laws.” The Court gave a literal interpretation to its opening lines, that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” By doing so, the Supreme Court united racial minority groups. For the Fourteenth Amendment had been passed to overturn the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, which declared that blacks were not citizens. Thus, because African Americans were citizens, Asian immigrants could be citizens as well – and vice versa.]
The anti-Asian American quotas WILL BE OVERTURNED again in the US Supreme Court, if need be, Cobra. you can bet on this. Yes indeed, it is the coming of the “new Yellow Peril”, co-incidentally the name of this thread, especially with your race preferentialist view in favor of blacks.
Cobra, you are full of IT.
To use a old saying,
“LET MY PEOPLE GO!”. I repeat, “LET MY PEOPLE GO!”
Cobra, you are full of IT!!
Your stance is pure HYPOCRISY. You cannot justify one injustice, favoritism for whites with another, favoritism for blacks, based solely on skin color.
Asian Americans are capped/limited by real and de facto racial quotas at the elite schools and in America. This action is ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. You should only be subjected to this yourself and you would see how “grateful” you could possibly be to the admissions officers of these elite schools for their “benevolance” towards you. There is the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment for equal access without regard to race, color, religion and creed, as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act that make this kind of discrimination ILLEGAL. There will be more Federal suits and complaints filed by Asian Americans based on these laws in the future, as John Rosenberg has alluded to on his site and post, in addition to the ones filed by Mr. Stanley Ng against the NYC Dept. of Education and the complaint filed with the Office for Civil Rights, US Dept. of Education, by Mr. Jian Li against Princetion U., as John Rosenberg has mentioned on this site.
Every fair minded American should be outraged, regardless of their race, color, religion or creed, against this kind of racial discrimination against one of America’s smallest minority groups, Asian Americans, which is seemingly insignificant politically. In the big picture and the long run, this kind of discrimination affects EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, not only Asian Americans. We should all learn from history with the discrimination against American Jews in admissions. If we, as Americans, do not learn from history, we as Americans, will eventually pay the price, because this kind of racial discrimination diminishes all of America, as a country.
My point point is that Asian American applicants have met or exceeded the definition of “merit”, in every form that it is used today in its totality, despite the preferences given to blacks, Latinos, as well as whites, and yet they have to meet a HIGHER BAR for admissions today, simply because of the use of racial and ethnic group preferences, with the Asian American group as the ONLY NON-PREFEPRRED racial group in admissions today.
The politically correct definition of “merit” for the race preferentialists, race advocates and RACISTS today, such as yourself, Mr. Bolton, is solely based on one’s color or hue of one’s skin, which these Ivy/Elite schools have succumbed to with their their racist admissions practices.
Asian Americans are required to meet higher objective standards of achievement, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and a higher holistic criteria than any other group, including blacks, latinos and whites, in order to be admitted. The holistic criteria consists of charcacter, leadership, special talents, athletic skills, awards (Intel Finalists, International Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympiad Gold Medals, national literary and music awards, etc.) motivations, perseverance, and the overcoming of obstacles, such as economic disadvantage and cultural and language differences for Asian Americans, from being one of the smallest racial minorities in America. They are also the objects of RACISM or the “new Yellow Peril” today, from the race preferentialists or RACISTS, such as yourself, Bolten, and Cobra.
The admissions committees can use any definition of merit they want to, but LEAVE RACE, ETHNICITY, and RELIGION OUT OF THE DEFINITION OF MERIT.
I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know. Today, these committees do not ask whether or not an applicant is Jewish, and rightfully so. So then, why should they ask the applicant whether or not they are Asian, Black, White, or Latino?? The admissions committees should not ask this.
Are you SERIOUS?? Are you for real??
You have not “won” anything. You have not cited any double blind reputable studies to back up any of your ridiculous assertions or so called “refutations”. You are simply flinging HORSE MANURE! You are one SINGLE ANGRY DELUSIONAL INDIVIDUAL WITH YOUR ASSERTIONS.
“LET MY PEOPLE GO!”. I repeat, “LET MY PEOPLE GO!”
Cobra, you are full of IT!!
I am tired of you. Please reread the thread and the links and then GO AWAY. Thanks in advance. You hace lost all credibilty!
Oh Cobra,
You have no understanding of the previous points of argument I had made. You lack the capacity to understand the SIMPLE POINTS I had made. One does not need rocket science to understand the numbers I had presented.
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/11/asian_discrimination_gave_birt.html
Asian Discrimination Gave Birth To Civil Rights Initiatives
In an interview with the Dartmouth Review (HatTip to Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences Mailing List), Ward Connerly suggests that his effort to eliminate racial preferences began with his seeing the widespread discrimination against Asians in the University of California.
[I was born in the Deep South in Louisiana in 1939, and I have seen and experienced racial discrimination in my lifetime. I think it is wrong, and that it denies our country the greatest potential from every person. When I was serving on the Board of Regents of the University of California, it was déjà vu all over again because I saw the discrimination that was visited upon Asian students at Berkeley and UCLA. As the number of Asians, the Chinese and Japanese at Berkeley especially, began to increase, the administration expressed its concern that Berkeley would become “Asian” and all that. My own view is that, I don’t care if an Asian takes every seat if he or she earned the right to be there, and so I moved to get rid of racial discrimination and preferential treatment in the UC System. One thing led to another, and so I expanded to California’s Proposition 209 and before I knew it, I had a second activity in my life that concerned me….]
And I don’t care if an Asian, black, white, latino, Jew or Gentile, takes every seat if he or she earned the right to be there, and so everyone fair minded American, regardless of his/race race, creed, color, sex, and religion must work to get rid of racial discrimination and preferential treatment in the admissions process.
Hey Cobra, with your support of race preferences, which are inherently racist and illegal, it sounds like déjà vu (or déjà Jew) all over again, as John Rosenberg, has mewntioned in this thread. According to your racist views, “there just are too many Asians”.
E writes:
>>>”And I don’t care if an Asian, black, white, latino, Jew or Gentile, takes every seat if he or she earned the right to be there, and so everyone fair minded American, regardless of his/race race, creed, color, sex, and religion must work to get rid of racial discrimination and preferential treatment in the admissions process.”
That’s a false statement. You sat here on this very blog and ATTACKED Sen. Barack Obama, calling him “tainted” and undeserving to have even attend Harvard Law School, despite the fact that he graduated Magna Cum Laude.
You also claimed to support “proportionate representation”,breaking down the admissions percentages by race, ethnicity and religion, which is the exact OPPOSITE of “…I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know.”
Your words, E.
You also apparently have a problem with African-Americans, despite how many pages of rhetoric you can cut and paste here.
You must also be FOOLISH if you think that a CONSCIOUS, non-apologetic African-American like myself is going to sit back and let you attack African-Americans unabated.
Sorry, E. Keep trying to intimidate white conservatives in here. Most are afraid to challenge you, because you enjoy “favored minority status” with them.
Your dog and pony show doesn’t work with me.
–Cobra
Cobra said,
“You must also be FOOLISH if you think that a CONSCIOUS, non-apologetic African-American like myself is going to sit back and let you attack African-Americans unabated.”
You are the FOOL. I am speaking to YOU! I have no problems with African Americans, but I have a problem with YOU! You are hallucinating with your delusions of paranoia and your delusions of grandeur by playing the race card and the “victim”. Now, Cobra, that’s a simple concept to grasp, but YOU are unable to grasp the simplest of points, and you can’t even read what I had posted.
I have not “attacked” anyone. You have not proven that anything that I had posted is false.
Again, every fair minded American should be outraged, regardless of their race, color, religion or creed, against this kind of racial discrimination against one of America’s smallest minority groups, Asian Americans, which is seemingly insignificant politically. In the big picture and the long run, this kind of discrimination affects EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN, not only Asian Americans. This includes you, Cobra. We should all learn from history with the discrimination against American Jews in admissions. If we, as Americans, do not learn from history, we as Americans, will eventually pay the price, because this kind of racial discrimination diminishes all of America, as a country. If you don’t learn the history lessons of the past, DISCRIMINATION of any kind, towards any group in American will come back and bite you, and it will hurt.
Hey Cobra, with your support of race preferences and preferential treatment for blacks or any other group for that matter, which are inherently racist and illegal, it sounds like déjà vu (or déjà Jew) all over again, as John Rosenberg has mentioned in this thread in his ORIGINAL post. According to your racist views, “there just are too many Asians”.
You easily forget the title of this thread, “A New “Yellow Peril””, on which you chose to chime in, without disproving anything I had said, or John Rosenberg had said in his original post.
You have not “won” anything. You have not cited any double blind reputable studies to back up any of your ridiculous assertions or so called “refutations”. You are simply flinging HORSE MANURE BECAUSE YOU ARE FULL OF IT! You are one SINGLE ANGRY DELUSIONAL INDIVIDUAL SELF-IDENTIFIED AFRICAN AMERICAN WHO IS NOW HALLUCINATING WITH YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Cobra, “LET MY PEOPLE GO!”. I repeat, “LET MY PEOPLE GO!” According to your racist views, “there just are too many Asians”.
You are LOST for a reputable response.
Again, I am tired of YOU. Please reread the thread, with all the facts and links present verifying the same and then, please go away, since you have contributed NOTHING to this thread. Thanks in advance.
Hey Cobra,
You need to read this, since John Rosenberg has linked this to the thread.
Cobra, you have COMPLETE DISREGARD for the truth.
http://www.discriminations.us/2006/11/preferences_as_a_zerosum_game.html
Preferences As A Zero-Sum Game
It really shouldn’t surprise anyone (though it still does) that giving preferences to some applicants based on their race places a burden on other applicants because of their race. Nor at this late date should it surprise anyone (though it still does) that the primary beneficiaries of eliminating preferences to minorities are not whites but another minority group, Asian-Americans.
Asian-American enrollment at Berkeley has increased since California voters banned affirmative action in college admissions. Berkeley accepted 4,122 Asian-American applicants for this fall’s freshman class — nearly 42% of the total admitted. That is up from 2,925 in 1997, or 34.6%, the last year before the ban took effect. Similarly, Asian-American undergraduate enrollment at the University of Washington rose to 25.4% in 2004 from 22.1% in 1998, when voters in that state prohibited affirmative action in college admissions.
The University of Michigan may be poised for a similar leap in Asian-American enrollment, now that voters in that state have banned affirmative action. The Center for Equal Opportunity study found that, among applicants with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university admitted 10% of Asian-Americans, 14% of whites, 88% of Hispanics and 92% of blacks. Asian applicants to the university’s medical school also faced a higher admissions bar than any other group
Now, as Dan Golden reports in front-page article in the Wall Street Journal, discrimination against Asians is coming under increased scrutiny. A Chinese-American student has filed a complaint against Princeton, and the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education has agreed to investigate.
UPDATE [14 November]
Anonymous, in the comment below, is right; the article in the Daily Princetonian is thorough, and definitely worth reading. I believe, however, that it exaggerates the novelty of a minority person challenging a system of preferences designed to help some minorities.
“Li’s minority status adds a new twist to the story,” the article asserts, “since previous complaints about universities’ racial preference policies have been filed by white students alleging bias.”
In Li’s case, however, “you have a minority candidate, but a minority candidate from a category that is not regarded by the [court] as an underrepresented category,” University politics professor and noted constitutional scholar Robert George said. “This is a minority candidate who is saying, ‘I don’t want my race to be counted for me or against me, but for my race not to be counted against me, it is important that no race be counted in any way that reduces my chances of admission.’”
“So you have two different categories of minority whose interests are allegedly in conflict.”
Professor George is correct (he usually is), but the Daily Princetonian is wrong to argue that it is “a new twist” for a minority to challenge racial and ethnic preferences. For example, as I mentioned a number of times (such as here), the student, Daniel Podberesky, who complained, successfully, about a scholarship at the University of Maryland that was available only to blacks is Hispanic.
In addition, consider Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, a case brought by the Asian American Legal Foundation on behalf of Chinese students in San Francisco who complained that city’s racial school assignment policy. Here is a brief summary from a law review note:
In San Francisco Unified School District, the voluntary integration policy divided students into thirteen racial/ethnic categories: “American; American Indian; Chinese; Filipino; Hispanic/Latino; Japanese; Korean; White; Arabic; Samoan; Southeast Asian ; Middle Easterner; and Other Non-White.” The policy mandated that “[n]o school shall have fewer than four racial/ethnic groups represented in its student body [and] [n]o racial/ethnic group shall constitute more than 45% of the student enrollment at any regular school, nor more than 40% at any alternative school.” Chinese Americans had become the largest identifiable ethnic group in San Francisco, and they were disproportionately burdened under the policy. In some heavily Chinese neighborhoods, young children were forced to attend schools far from their homes to satisfy the 45% requirement. The greatest controversy erupted at one of the district’s “alternative” high schools. Lowell High School, one of the best high schools in the country, admitted students through a competitive magnet admissions policy. Under the 40% cap, this policy became a quota for students of Chinese descent. This led the Ho plaintiffs, Chinese-American students that were turned away from their schools of choice, to challenge the policy. The litigation spanned five years until, on interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the court placed the burden on the school district to prove a remedial interest. With the courts unwilling to recognize diversity as a compelling interest, the school district settled on the first day of trial, eliminating the use of race in student placement.
The Princeton study cited in the article apparently found that eliminating preferences would have little effect on whites but would significantly reduce the number of blacks and increase the number of Asians. This may well be true, but it is worth noting, as I did here, that that was not the case in the University of California system when preferences were eliminated. There, the proportion of Asians admitted rose significantly, but the proportion of whites fell significantly. The proportion of blacks also fell, but not by as much as is generally thought. As I wrote in the post just linked:
For a graphic depiction of the freshman enrollment by race in the University of California and the California State University systems from 1997 (the last year before Prop. 209 took effect) through 2005, take a look at the graphs here.
As you will see, the racial group most affected by the ending of race preferences in [the University of California system] is whites: their proportion of entering freshmen fell from 40% in 1997 to 34% in 2005. Two minority groups saw their proportion of entering freshmen increase: Asians, whose proportion rose from 37% in 1997 to 41% in 2005; and Latinos, who rose from 13% to 16%. The proportion of blacks fell from 4% in 1997 to 3% in 2005.
The experience at the University of Texas during the several years it was barred from using racial preferences was similar to the experience in California, as reported in this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2003:
In 1997, the year after a federal appeals court precluded the University of Texas at Austin from using race-conscious admissions, the university accepted 81 percent of its Asian applicants, up from 68 percent the year before. Supporters of affirmative action challenge such figures, and contend that Asian enrollments have risen little at selective public colleges in other states, such as California, which no longer considers race and ethnicity in admissions.
As we have seen, the argument of “supporters of affirmative action” noted above is incorrect.
E writes:
>>>”I have no problems with African Americans, but I have a problem with YOU!”
Sure you have a problem with African-Americans. You have been “Gratzified” into believing that spots in Colleges and Universities are “reserved” for Asian-Americans only, and that African-Americans and Latinos have usurped them.
How do I get this notion about you?
>>>”Their admission of 8% blacks, who are under performing, affluent, rich , and beneficiaries of a admissions lower bar is also SELF-SERVING in order to be politically correct by using RACE as the standard for admissions.”
E writes:
>>>”You have not “won” anything. You have not cited any double blind reputable studies to back up any of your ridiculous assertions or so called “refutations”.”
Hello? E–what are you talking about? You posted OPINIONS. Everybody has OPINIONS.
When you post something that reads:
>>>”9. BLACKS CAN SUCCEED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF MERIT.”
That’s an OPINION. One I disagree with based upon the sum total of American History in regards to Blacks, and the continuation of present day discrimination against Blacks.
Now, you have every right to join the Flat Earth Society and DENY that African-Americans have and continue to suffer discrimination. I’m sure you will in your next post.
E writes:
>>>”According to your racist views, “there just are too many Asians”.”
According to your views, there are just too many African-Americans and Latinos at elite institutions. There is NO other explanation possible for your constant complaints about Blacks.
You have a right to believe what you wish, of course, but when you type it in a public blog, don’t feel surprised when a Black guy (Cobra) challenges you when you allude “there’s too many Blacks” somewhere.
E writes:
>>>”Again, I am tired of YOU. Please reread the thread, with all the facts and links present verifying the same and then, please go away, since you have contributed NOTHING to this thread. Thanks in advance.”
LOL…E, that’s just not how this thing works. What you need to do is scroll back through the archives of Discriminations. Look up some of the threads that I posted on. You’ll find out, just like many of the other anti-affirmative action types here…
I don’t go away.
I’m indefatigable.
You can keep posting quotes from every anti-black quack you can surf the net for. Post David Duke if you wish.
It won’t make any difference.
–Cobra
Cobra,
You are now TALKING TO YOURSELF and becoming DELUSIONAL, by imagining and hearing things that do not exist and twisting the truth, answering your own questions and actually loosing touch with reality, by becoming psychotic, in dire need of help.
You are flinging HORSE MANURE, because you are full of it.
You have been NAILED for lack of a reputable response.
You have not “won” anything. You have not cited any double blind reputable studies to back up any of your ridiculous assertions or so called “refutations”. You are simply flinging HORSE MANURE BECAUSE YOU ARE FULL OF IT! You are one SINGLE ANGRY DELUSIONAL INDIVIDUAL SELF-IDENTIFIED AFRICAN AMERICAN WHO IS NOW HALLUCINATING WITH YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Cobra, “LET MY PEOPLE GO!”. I repeat, “LET MY PEOPLE GO!” According to your racist views, “there just are too many Asians”.
You easily forget the title of this thread, “A New “Yellow Peril””, on which you chose to chime in, without disproving anything I had said, or John Rosenberg had said in his original post.
John Rosenberg said, [Sounds like déjà vu (or déjà Jew) all over again.] Yes, this is exactly what your views on racial preferences and preferential treatment favoring you based solely on skin color, in elite college, graduate and professional school admissions, sound like. Keep ranting and raving, because that’s all you could do, since you have been discredited a long time ago. My points of argument stand on solid legal and moral ground, up to the highest court of this land, the US Supreme Court.
Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rate of any racial or ethnic group, including whites, because of racial preferences.
Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.
By lowering the admissions standards for URMs (underrepresented minorities, blacks, Latinos, etc.), these schools raise the admissions standards for Asians. Whites are also admitted with lower standards than Asians, on the average, but higher than that of URMs.
Asians, with their overall higher standards for admissions, as an applicant group, on the average relative to the other groups, including whites, are used to compensate for the lowered standards for the admission of the other groups.
The anti-Asian American quotas WILL BE OVERTURNED again in the US Supreme Court, if need be, Cobra. you can bet on this. Yes indeed, it is the coming of the “new Yellow Peril”, co-incidentally the name of this thread, especially with your race preferentialist view in favor of blacks.
Hu’s Laws of Affirmative Action
(1) No two groups are equal unless they are stastically identical
(2) The level of inequality goes up with the level of selectivity
(3) The only way to impose equality is to use different selection levels, and amount of difference goes up with the level of selection
These laws are upheld for almost every observable case of affirmative action.
The Politically Correct Laws of Affirmative Action
1) All groups are naturally equal in the absence of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
2) Any differences are due to racism by the White Race (TM) and only the White Race (TM), in particular, religious, rich, conservative straight white males, can cause these differences. For differences between classes, see Karl Marx.
3) Affirmative Action does not require any preferences for any group at any level for any group.
These laws are consistent with any orthodox piece ever written about or defending affirmative action.
Top 10 most stupid defenses of affirmative action
1 – Affirmative Action is not racial preference. But they won’t
tolerate a ban on preferences. And if it’s unfair to not attack
veterans and alumni preferences, then doesn’t that prove that it is
also preferential?
2 – Affirmative Action is not quotas. But the only acceptable
evidence of discrimination is numerical quotas – “minorities are
under-represented”. No other criterion – test scores, grades,
experience are acceptable if they don’t result in diversity.
3 – Affirmative Action does not lower standards of excellence. But
the only standard of excellence that has any value is skin color and
ethnicity. The same people who say that there are no differences in
standards often refer to MINIMAL, not average standards.
4 – Affirmative Action does not admit unqualified people. But it is
admitting lesser qualified people. This is a circular defintion if
you define minimally qualified by the worst person hired. Minimally
is not equally or best qualified.
5 – Affirmative Action is not reverse discrimination. Some cite that
only whites can be racist since only they have power. They say
that it is impossible to discriminate against whites, even if a
program completely excludes whites, or causes whites to be
under-represented. Many admit that affirmative action is preference
for some races, which is by the dictionary defintion, discrimination.
6 – Discrimination still exists. It will always exist. But
discrimination against innocent parties does nothing to eliminate
discrimination against minorities, it only creates more
discrimination, and affirmative action is discrimination sanctioned
by law.
7 – Selection without regard to race amounts to unfair discrimination.
This is the most outrageously and blatant twisting of the word
discrimination, which used to mean selection with race AS a factor.
The definition of discrimination is now unequal outcomes, as opposed
to unequal treatment.
8 – No white man has ever been discriminated against. There are books
and newspapers full of the stuff, but it is rarely reported, and when
it is challenged, they often lose because the courts often rule
discrimination against Whites to be legal.
You did not refute ANYTHING. You are still flinging HORSE MANURE!!
Cobra, you are full of IT.
Hey Cobra,
From John Rosenberg,
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/11/is_legal_status_an_impermissib.html
I’ve just been reminded that the invaluable Center for Equal Opportunity has done a detailed study of preferences in North Carolina colleges (as well as studies in several other states). Among its findings:
* All six public colleges and universities in North Carolina that we studied — NC State and UNC at Asheville, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, Greensboro, and Wilmington — show a substantial qualifications gap between black and white applicants who have been accepted for future enrollment;
* The odds of admission at five of the six schools studied indicate a strong degree of preference in admissions given to blacks over whites. These odds ratios range from 177.1 at NC State to 3.4 at Chapel Hill. The odds of admission at Greensboro, 0.97, indicate that preferences do not operate there;
* There is no evidence that Asian applicants receive special preference at any North Carolina colleges and universities. In fact, there is evidence that Asian applicants with the same academic qualifications find it somewhat more difficult to obtain admission than do their white counterparts. At every school studied, the odds of admission favor whites over Asians.
The odds ratio at North Carolina State are particularly impressive, or something. As the authors of the study commented, “NC State’s results are as high as we found at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where the comparable odds ratio was 173.7 to 1.”
Outdoing pre-Prop. 2 Michigan in granting preferences is quite an achievement. Apparently, however, this dramatic evidence that applicants to NC State and other state colleges were not treated without regard to their race or ethnicity (blacks better, Asians worse) was not sufficient to lead Attorney General, now Governor, Easley to suspect that some “nonacademic criteria” were and are being weighed in the admissions process.
===========================
Say What?
John, this report found that:
“There is no evidence that Asian applicants receive special preference at any North Carolina colleges and universities. In fact, there is evidence that Asian applicants with the same academic qualifications find it somewhat more difficult to obtain admission than do their white counterparts. At every school studied, the odds of admission favor whites over Asians.”
AT EVERY SCHOOL STUDIED, THE ODDS OF ADMISSIONS FAVOR WHITES OVER ASIANS.
WELL, THIS IS NOTHING NEW.
This is also true in the Ivies and the Elites, the elite graduate schools, as well as the professional schools of medicine, law and business.
I would call this effect on Asian Americans the reverse “Cascade Effect”, which was defined by Professor Sanders of UCLA. More qualified Asian Americans are displaced by less qualified students of all other races and ethnicities, in varying degrees of decreasing order in the pecking order of selectivity of said schools, or down the food chain, from the most selective schools, the Ivies/Elites, then to the elite state schools and lastly, to the not so “elite”, third tier schools, or the bottom of the pecking order/food chain.
This does not surprise me at all and this indeed illustrates the coming of the “new Yellow Peril” or of the the old “Yellow Peril” which never really went away , especially during the last two decades, where studies were done to verify this fact, especially at the private Ivies and Elites such as Brown and Stanford.
From the Espenshade and Chung Study,
Please click on the commentary on the study by Espenshade at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories
Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain — in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants. The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants’ SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don’t forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.
Posted by: E | November 29, 2007 9:50 AM
E writes:
>>>”You have not cited any double blind reputable studies to back up any of your ridiculous assertions or so called “refutations”.”
And YOU post “double-blind reputable studies?”
LOL!
Dr. Hu?
LOL!
The guy who writes this:
>>>”Hu’s Laws of Affirmative Action
(1) No two groups are equal unless they are stastically identical
(2) The level of inequality goes up with the level of selectivity
(3) The only way to impose equality is to use different selection levels, and amount of difference goes up with the level of selection
These laws are upheld for almost every observable case of affirmative action.”
Read those OPINIONS back to yourself, E.
“(1) No two groups are equal unless they are stastically identical”
IF Dr. Hu is saying that “NO TWO GROUPS ARE EQUAL”, then there are “superior groups” and “inferior groups”. Basing this on Affirmative Action, Hu is OBVIOUSLY talking about race and ethnicity. IF Dr. Hu is saying that there are SUPERIOR ethnic and racial “groups” and INFERIOR ethnic and racial “groups”, what is he actually saying?
Need some help, E?
>>>”Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective”
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racist
Do YOU feel the same as Dr. Hu, E? Especially, since you posted this verbatum MULTIPLE times here?
Hmmmm?
–Cobra
Hey Cobra,
You can’t even read and lack the capacity to understand simple concepts. ! Here’s a short summary of only some of the points and the RESEARCH and studies done on this topic, verifying “the new Yellow Peril”, which you, Cobra, perpetuated with your racist views in favor of race preferences and preferential treatment for blacks in elite school admissions.
From John Rosenberg,
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/11/is_legal_status_an_impermissib.html
From the Espenshade and Chung Study,
Please click on the commentary on the study by Espenshade at Princeton.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories
Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don’t forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.
You did not refute ANYTHING. You are still flinging HORSE MANURE!!
By playing the race card and the perpetual “victim”, you get nowhere. This will quicken your quick demise.
Click on the following to read WSJ’s Dan Golden’s Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles on these matters.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PulitzerDG04052004.htm?mod=home_journal_links
Click on the following link to listen to Golden’s interview on his book, The Price of Admission.
http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20060906/pod-wsjgolden/pod-wsjgolden.mp3
He talks about legacy, sports, and rich and famous VIP preferences in admissions to the Ivies.
Dan Golden has a chapter about the discrimination against Asian Ams who have to meet a higher standard of admissions (SAT scores as much as 125 points higher) and a higher holistic criteria (motivations, creativity, ECs). He states that Asian American faced the same discrimination Jews did. Asians faced a higher bar. He talks about the stereotypes of Asians , which he states “that if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
The Model Students- Nicholas Kristof Op-Ed Columnist- NYTimes
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/opinion/14kristof.html?pagewanted=print
The New York Times
May 14, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Model Students
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
QUOTE:
[So then why do Asian-Americans really succeed in school? Aside from immigrant optimism, I see two and a half reasons:
First, as Trang suggests, is the filial piety nurtured by Confucianism for 2,500 years. Teenagers rebel all over the world, but somehow Asian-American kids often manage both to exasperate and to finish their homework. And Asian-American families may not always be warm and fuzzy, but they tend to be intact and focused on their children’s getting ahead.
Second, Confucianism encourages a reverence for education. In Chinese villages, you still sometimes see a monument to a young man who centuries ago passed the jinshi exam — the Ming dynasty equivalent of getting a perfect SAT. In a Confucian culture, it is intuitive that the way to achieve glory and success is by working hard and getting A’s.
Then there’s the half-reason: American kids typically say in polls that the students who succeed in school are the “brains.” Asian kids typically say that the A students are those who work hard. That means no Asian-American ever has an excuse for not becoming valedictorian.
“Anybody can be smart, can do great on standardized tests,” Trang explains. “But unless you work hard, you’re not going to do well.”
If I’m right, the success of Asian-Americans is mostly about culture, and there’s no way to transplant a culture. But there are lessons we can absorb, and maybe the easiest is that respect for education pays dividends. That can come, for example, in the form of higher teacher salaries, or greater public efforts to honor star students. While there are no magic bullets, we would be fools not to try to learn some Asian lessons.]
You are not kidding anyone.
Cobra, you are full of IT (horse manure).
Contrary to your racist beliefs, “#9. BLACKS CAN SUCCEED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF MERIT.”
E writes:
>>>”You are not kidding anyone.”
Of course not. I’m dead serious.
And YOU didn’t answer my question.
Do YOU feel the same as Dr. Hu, E?
Let’s look at your hero Dr. Arthur Hu, more closely, since I KNOW you won’t answer that question. I just want to let the readers of Discriminations know EXACTLY what Dr. Hu stands for:
>>>”The Bell Curve is generally right. But we really don’t know if the races will never be equal, only that they aren’t right now, and they won’t be until IQ is equal.”
http://www.arthurhu.com/hu1st.htm
Who’s next for you, E? Kenneth Eng? http://www.nbc11.com/download/2007/0227/11128290.pdf
You also tried to pull a fast one on Discriminations reader’s with Nicholas Kristoff’s piece. The first time you posted it in its entirety, thinking that volume would compensate for the mixed-message the article gives. The second time, you neglected to post this PASSAGE:
>>>”In the U.S., for example, ethnic Koreans are academic stars. But in Japan, ethnic Koreans languish in an underclass, often doing poorly in schools and becoming involved in the yakuza mafia.
(KEY SENTENCE FOLLOWS)
One lesson may be that if you discriminate against a minority and repeatedly shove its members off the social escalator, then you create pathologies of self-doubt that can become self-sustaining.”
If you applied THAT particular lesson to American History, which Minority groups have been MOST discriminated against, and thrown off the “social escalator” MOST often?
Native-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and AFRICAN-AMERICANS, tough guy.
You won’t talk about “little matters” of GENOCIDE, CHATTEL SLAVERY and INSTITUTIONAL RACISM, because apparently, based on your posts, those things pale in comparison to “proportionate representation” in Ivy League admissions for Asians, which is another symptom of “Gratzification.”
But that doesn’t stop you from being a HYPOCRITE…
>>>”If we, as Americans, do not learn from history, we as Americans, will eventually pay the price, because this kind of racial discrimination diminishes all of America, as a country.”
And then turn around and say this:
>>>”I have the utmost empathy and sympathy for the Jews of the past because of the discrimination against them based on ethnicity and religion, especially in ADMISSIONS TO AMERICA’S ELITE COLLEGES AND PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, but Asian Americans have taken the place of the old JEWS of the past, because as Dan Golden said in his new book, THE PRICE OF ADMISSIONS, Chap. 7, Asian Americans are the “new Jews” and they need not apply.”
Hey, E…would you like to compare the “capping” of Jewish Students to Ivies to the STATE MANDATED “compulsory ignorance” laws;
>>>”In the American (North, Latin, or South) colonies, the slave lost his identity as a valued member of a local community. Often captives or different tribes, languages, homelands, and religions, would be grouped and sold together to lessen the likelihood of cooperation and resistance. Valued for his muscles rather than his brains, he might be taught a few skills, but no more than necessary.
South Carolina adopted the first compulsory ignorance law in America in 1740: And whereas the having of slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in writing, may be attended with great inconveniences: Be it enacted, that all and every person or persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach, or shall use or employ any slave as a scribe in any manner of writing whatsolver, hereafter taught to write, every such persons or persons shall, for each offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds current money…
…The Deep South enforced the most severe restrictions upon Black learning. No records have been found that anyone in Alabama or Mississippi ever violated the laws by teaching Blacks to read.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199701/ai_n8749429
It was a FELONY to teach a black person to read in the South for GENERATIONS, E, in this man’s America. But, this history lesson isn’t really aimed at you. I can tell by your responses you really don’t read anything I post to you.
This is for those readers out there who might be ready to buy into your “only Asians and Jews have suffered education discrimination in America” propaganda.
I’m here to set the record straight.
–Cobra
Cobra said,
[This is for those readers out there who might be ready to buy into your “only Asians and Jews have suffered education discrimination in America” propaganda.
I’m here to set the record straight.]
Cobra, you can’t even read and I am tired of you. You are hallucinating by just telling lies about what I had said. Reread the thread again. You are full of RACIST HORSE MANURE and you have been flinging it on this blog constantly. Please stop with your LIES regarding what was said.
THE ONLY THING YOU ARE “SETTING STRAIGHT” IS THAT YOU ARE A RACIST AND A LIAR!
You are the racist, since you, Cobra, are asking for race preferences and preferential treatment for blacks by playing the race card, which will be the cause of your quick demise. Jews and Asian Americans are NOT ASKING for preferential treatment based on race, religion and ethnicity, even though they faced prejudice and hatred from you and your ilk. That’s the difference.
Cobra, you have COMPLETE DISREGARD for the truth.
http://www.discriminations.us/2006/11/preferences_as_a_zerosum_game.html
Preferences As A Zero-Sum Game
It really shouldn’t surprise anyone (though it still does) that giving preferences to some applicants based on their race places a burden on other applicants because of their race. Nor at this late date should it surprise anyone (though it still does) that the primary beneficiaries of eliminating preferences to minorities are not whites but another minority group, Asian-Americans.
Asian-American enrollment at Berkeley has increased since California voters banned affirmative action in college admissions. Berkeley accepted 4,122 Asian-American applicants for this fall’s freshman class — nearly 42% of the total admitted. That is up from 2,925 in 1997, or 34.6%, the last year before the ban took effect. Similarly, Asian-American undergraduate enrollment at the University of Washington rose to 25.4% in 2004 from 22.1% in 1998, when voters in that state prohibited affirmative action in college admissions.
The University of Michigan may be poised for a similar leap in Asian-American enrollment, now that voters in that state have banned affirmative action. The Center for Equal Opportunity study found that, among applicants with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university admitted 10% of Asian-Americans, 14% of whites, 88% of Hispanics and 92% of blacks. Asian applicants to the university’s medical school also faced a higher admissions bar than any other group.
Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don’t forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.
Now, as Dan Golden reports in front-page article in the Wall Street Journal, discrimination against Asians is coming under increased scrutiny. A Chinese-American student has filed a complaint against Princeton, and the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education has agreed to investigate.
Click on the following link to listen to Golden’s interview on his book, The Price of Admission.
http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20060906/pod-wsjgolden/pod-wsjgolden.mp3
He talks about legacy, sports, and rich and famous VIP preferences in admissions to the Ivies.
Dan Golden has a chapter about the discrimination against Asian Americans, who have to meet a higher standard of admissions (SAT scores as much as 125 points higher) and a higher holistic criteria (motivations, creativity, ECs). He states that Asian American faced the same discrimination Jews did. Asians faced a higher bar. He talks about the stereotypes of Asians , which he states “that if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Sports help rich affluent whites, not URMs, and not poor whites in elite college admissions in sports such as crew, squash, fencing, etc., in preps such as Groton and Andover.
From Daniel Golden’s The Price of Admission, Chapter 7, “The New Jews, Asian
Americans Need Not Apply”:
………
“In 1990, federal investigators concluded that UCLA’s graduate department in mathematics
had discriminated against Asian applicants.”
………
“ most elite universities have maintained a triple standard in college admissions,
setting the bar highest for Asians, next for whites, and lowest for blacks and Hispanics.
According to a 2004 study by three Princeton researchers, an Asian American applicant
needs to score 50 points higher on the SAT than other applicants just to have the same chance
of admission to an elite university. (Being an alumni child, by contrast, confers a 160-point
advantage.) Yale records show that entering Asian American freshmen averaged a 1493
SAT score in 1999-2000, 1496 in 2000-2001, and 1482 in 2001-2. For the same three years,
the average for white freshmen was about 40 points lower. Black and Hispanic freshmen
lagged another 100-125 points below whites. A Yale spokesman attributed the Asian-white
gap to more whites being recruited athletes, and said Asians and whites are held to the same
academic standards.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Federal investigators also turned up stereotyping by Harvard admissions evaluators. Possibly
reflecting a lack of cultural understanding, Harvard evaluators ranked Asian American candidates
on average below whites in “personal qualities.” In comments written in applicants’ files, Harvard
admissions staff repeatedly described Asian Americans as “being quiet/shy, science/math oriented,
and hard workers,” the report found. One reader summed up an Asian applicant this way: “He’s
quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“He [ Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt] added that the stereotype of the quiet Asian student
is “really a strange notion. My Asian American students are very lively. They take leadership
positions. They’re not at all shy or reticent.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Now as then, a lack of preferences can be a convenient guise for racism. Much as college
administrators justified anti-Jewish policies with ethnic stereotypes — one Yale dean in 1918 termed
the typical Jewish student a “greasy grind” — so Asians are typecast in college admissions offices
as quasi-robots programmed by their parents to ace math and science tests. Asked why Vanderbilt
poured resources into recruiting Jews instead of Asians, a former administrator told me, “Asians are very good students, but they don’t provide the kind of intellectual environment that Jewish students provide.”
. . . . . . . . . .
From chapter 10, “Ending the Preferences of Privilege”:
“Provide equal access for Asian American students and for international students who need
financial aid. If elite colleges were truly committed to socioeconomic diversity, they would regard
the proliferation of outstanding Asian American applicants as an opportunity, not a problem. They would rush to propel into the higher ranks of American society a group of students who not only
boast outstanding test scores and grades but also are immigrants or immigrants’ children from low or middle-income families that sacrificed in hope of a better life for the next generation. Asian
American students also bring a variety of cultures, languages, and religions to stir the campus melting pot. Colleges should counter anti-Asian bias through sensitivity training sessions and hiring more Asian American admissions deans, directors, and staff.”
. . . . . . . . . .
Golden states “that if Asian Americans, are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Top 10 most stupid defenses of affirmative action
1 – Affirmative Action is not racial preference. But they won’t
tolerate a ban on preferences. And if it’s unfair to not attack
veterans and alumni preferences, then doesn’t that prove that it is
also preferential?
2 – Affirmative Action is not quotas. But the only acceptable
evidence of discrimination is numerical quotas – “minorities are
under-represented”. No other criterion – test scores, grades,
experience are acceptable if they don’t result in diversity.
3 – Affirmative Action does not lower standards of excellence. But
the only standard of excellence that has any value is skin color and
ethnicity. The same people who say that there are no differences in
standards often refer to MINIMAL, not average standards.
4 – Affirmative Action does not admit unqualified people. But it is
admitting lesser qualified people. This is a circular defintion if
you define minimally qualified by the worst person hired. Minimally
is not equally or best qualified.
5 – Affirmative Action is not reverse discrimination. Some cite that
only whites can be racist since only they have power. They say that it is impossible to discriminate against whites, even if a
program completely excludes whites, or causes whites to be under-represented. Many admit that affirmative action is preference
for some races, which is by the dictionary defintion, discrimination.
6 – Discrimination still exists. It will always exist. But
discrimination against innocent parties does nothing to eliminate
discrimination against minorities, it only creates more discrimination, and affirmative action is discrimination sanctioned
by law.
7 – Selection without regard to race amounts to unfair discrimination.
This is the most outrageously and blatant twisting of the word
discrimination, which used to mean selection with race AS a factor.
The definition of discrimination is now unequal outcomes, as opposed to unequal treatment.
8 – No white man has ever been discriminated against. There are books and newspapers full of the stuff, but it is rarely reported, and when it is challenged, they often lose because the courts often rule discrimination against Whites to be legal.
I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know. Today, these committees do not ask whether or not an applicant is Jewish, and rightfully so. So then, why should they ask the applicant whether or not they are Asian, Black, White, or Latino?? The admissions committees should not ask this.
Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rate of any racial or ethnic group, including whites, because of racial preferences.
Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.
By lowering the admissions standards for URMs (underrepresented minorities, blacks, Latinos, etc.), these schools raise the admissions standards for Asians. Whites are also admitted with lower standards than Asians, on the average, but higher than that of URMs.
Asians, with their overall higher standards for admissions, as an applicant group, on the average relative to the other groups, including whites, are used to compensate for the lowered standards for the admission of the other groups.
I have not aligned myself with any side, right or left, white or black, Jew or Gentile. You are so quick with your labels, that you have absolutely no credibility at all.
Again, your stance is pure HYPOCRISY. You cannot justify one injustice, favoritism for whites with another, favoritism for blacks, based solely on skin color.
You are shoveling HORSE MANURE.
You did not refute ANYTHING. You are still flinging HORSE MANURE!!
Cobra, you are full of IT.
I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know. The adcoms can use any standards or criteria for admissions, but leave RACE and ethnicity of the admissions. Asian Americans are not asking for preferential treatment, based on the color of their skins, because they were and still are victims of racism.
So then, why should they ask the applicant whether or not they are Asian, Black, White, or Latino?? The admissions committees should not ask this.
You have absolutely no understanding of this thread, because you are full of horse manure. Your constant whining, ranting and raving, using the race card and being a racist yourself, simply won’t fly in the USA, under the laws of our great land.
Cobra, YOU ARE FULL OF HORSE MANURE, because you simply cannot justify race preferences and preferential treatment for blacks, OR FOR ANY OTHER RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP FOR THAT MATTER.
Asian Americans are not asking for racial preferences or preferential treatment based on skin color, which is the kind of preferential treatment you are asking for, which in turn IS SIMPLY RACIST, JUST LIKE YOU ARE COBRA.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. A 10 year old can understand this, but not you, with your complete disregard for the truth, simply by LYING on this blog site. You SIMPLY LACK THE CAPACITY to under what was said on this site and John Rosenberg’s original post and the title, “A New Yellow Peril” . Yes it is deja vu or deja Jew again, as John has said.
E writes:
>>>”You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. A 10 year old can understand this, but not you, with your complete disregard for the truth, simply by LYING on this blog site. You SIMPLY LACK THE CAPACITY to under what was said on this site and John Rosenberg’s original post and the title, “A New Yellow Peril” . Yes it is deja vu or deja Jew again, as John has said.”
If I WAS a rocket scientist, you would say I was a “TAINTED” and “unqualified” rocket scientist because I’m African-American.
This is a reasonable statement based upon the attacks you’ve made against Barack Obama, who took the VERY SAME courses, tests ans examinations as Asian-Americans at Harvard Law School and graduated Magna Cum Laude.
Yes, the title of this blog thread is “The New Yellow Peril”, but you proceeded to attack African-Americans at your first opportunity here:
>>>”These schools ARE NOT very proficient at identifying promise in teenagers who aren’t from the renowned high schools today, especially poor Asian Americans who score well and obtain HIGH GPAs, outperforming rich privileged blacks, Latinos and whites, because of racial preferences capping their numbers by a limiting racial quota against Asians”
Posted by: E | November 25, 2007 5:18 PM
You call me a hypocrite?
Here’s YOUR words:
>>>”I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know.”
ONLY SIX paragraphs before that, you write:
>>>”Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.”
Even to an “inferior” racial and ethnic group, that smacks of blatant HYPOCRISY.
E writes:
>>>”Your constant whining, ranting and raving, using the race card and being a racist yourself, simply won’t fly in the USA, under the laws of our great land.”
Our “great land” is full of racism. That’s why I support Affirmative Action.
You accuse me of being a racist for advocating programs that help minorities that are discriminated against, while advocating the elimination of the same programs that you believe would help YOUR minority group.
What you fail to see is that eliminating Affirmative Action isn’t going to help Asian-Americans in the long run. You don’t stay in college forever. I’ve chronicled here about the “bamboo ceiling” that exists in the WMPS, and promotional discrimination that exists in the tech industry, Silicon Valley, etc.
You’re entitled to your opinions. Everybody has them.
You can hate me. You wouldn’t be the first.
You can call me names. I’ve been called worse by better. Your resorting to ad-hominem, and not the substance of my posts tells me one thing;
You’re frustrated and you can’t answer my questions.
That gives me a warm smile on a chilly Sunday morning.
–Cobra
Cobra said,
[Our “great land” is full of racism. That’s why I support Affirmative Action.]
YOU SUPPORT RACE BASED AA, OR RACIAL PREFERENCES, WHICH ARE INHERENTLY RACIST AND ILLEGAL. THIS IS THE SAME RACISM, BOTH YOU AND I DENOUNCE, YOU FRIGGIN (Cobra’s own word) HYPOCRITE. Our “great land” is full of racism. That’s why I DON’T support RACE BASED Affirmative Action or racial preferences. John Rosenberg and I have shown you why with evidence that will stand up in the US Supreme of our great land.
I SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WHICH IS ECONOMICALLY BASED.
Simply stated, “YOU ARE FULL OF HORSE MANURE”
Oh, Cobra, you have yet to post a reputable response or rebuttal or rebuke to any of my points or to John Rosenberg’s voluminous material pertaining to the issue on this thread or any other threads on John’s blog.
You are ONE self-identified delusional African American hallucinating with paranoid ideations by hearing and reading things that were never said here, out of touch with reality, and in your denial of the truth, by playing the RACE CARD. This will get you nowhere.
Anyone reading this thread, black, white, yellow, purple, Jew or Gentile can understand the reasonable points that I have made.
Cobra, your views presented by YOU here, can be viewed as flaming racist, ignorant, and moronic coming out of the woodwork. And that’s just describing your VIEWS. This is putting it NICELY and diplomatically as one can in view of your posts.
You are so hateful, that you accuse others of “hate”.
HEY, COBRA, “WHO ARE YOU FRIGGIN (COBRA’S WORD) KIDDING?????
Again,
You are so hateful, that you accuse others of “hate”.
HEY, COBRA, “WHO ARE YOU FRIGGIN (COBRA’S WORD) KIDDING?????
You are a danger to YOURSELF, and will eventually self-destruct.
Cobra said,
[Here’s YOUR words:
>>>”I advocate a RACE BLIND and ETHNIC GROUP BLIND admissions process. I do not want to know the race, ethnicity, creed, or religion of the applicant, and the admissions committees should not have to know.”
ONLY SIX paragraphs before that, you write:
>>>”Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.”]
ARE YOU REALLY THAT THICK???
The admissions rates as stated are BASED ON RACIAL QUOTAS AND RACIAL PREFERENCES FOR BLACKS. That in itself is RACIST, which you deny.
Is your mind THAT TWISTED or are you simply incapable of understanding simple logic??
ELIMINATE RACIAL QUOTAS, RACIAL PREFERENCES, and RACIAL PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF THE POPULATION IN ADMISSIONS, and the adcoms can use any standards or criteria the adcoms want to use in admissions, by NOT KNOWING THE RACE OR ETHNICITY of the applicant. Then and then, I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW OF THE STUDENTS OR THE APPLICANT!
Cobra, are you that limited in your capacity to understand a single Simple point?? You must be!
You also said, “What you fail to see is that eliminating Affirmative Action isn’t going to help Asian-Americans in the long run. You don’t stay in college forever. I’ve chronicled here about the “bamboo ceiling” that exists in the WMPS, and promotional discrimination that exists in the tech industry, Silicon Valley, etc.”
Here, you slip and slide into another topic, which I am fully cognizant of. You leave the topic of racial preferences in elite college admissions.
I am fully aware of the above, Cobra. The way to correct the situation is NOT RACE BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. One can succeed by “merit”, even blacks (YES EVEN BLACKS!!!), as well as Asians and many have succeeded based on merit, especially blacks. Asking for racial preferences and preferential treatment based on your color or hue of your skin does MORE HARM THAN GOOD. In the long run, this will eventually come back and BITE YOU! THIS WILL HURT YOU, AS A BLACK MAN, OR ANYONE WHO HAS RECEIVED RACE PREFERENCES IN ADMISSIONS, INCLUDING ASIANS!!
Hey, Cobra,
COMPRENDE?????
I am really tired of you.
YOU ARE FULL OF HORSE MANURE.
Cobra said,
[If I WAS a rocket scientist, you would say I was a “TAINTED” and “unqualified” rocket scientist because I’m African-American…..This is a reasonable statement based upon the attacks you’ve made against Barack Obama, who took the VERY SAME courses, tests ans examinations as Asian-Americans at Harvard Law School and graduated Magna Cum Laude.]
SO WHAT????????????
Top 10 most stupid defenses of affirmative action
3 – Affirmative Action does not lower standards of excellence. But
the only standard of excellence that has any value is skin color and
ethnicity. The same people who say that there are no differences in
standards often refer to MINIMAL, not average standards.
4 – Affirmative Action does not admit unqualified people. But it is
admitting lesser qualified people. This is a circular defintion if
you define minimally qualified by the worst person hired. Minimally
is not equally or best qualified.
You have no capacity to understand my points and you keep HARPING on Barack Obama by twisting what I had said.
========================
Please read this on the Bar Exams:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
Need a Lawyer?
In 1988, New York State’s Chief Judge established a committee, The New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities. Its purpose was to study the presence and effects of racism in the state’s courts. Buried in its final 2000-page report was the finding that minorities passed the New York bar exam at significantly lower rates than whites. The commission found that for the period spanning 1985 through 1988, first-attempt pass rates were 31.1 percent for blacks and 73.1 percent for whites. Applying the methods of Appendix A, we translated these pass rates to a corresponding black-white mean difference of 1.11 SD.
Several years later, commenting on the Commission’s findings, Edna Wells Handy wrote in The New York Law Journal of April 1996, “Determining whether those pass rates have remained constant since the Commission’s report must await the completion and dissemination of the national bar exam study presently being conducted by the Law School Admission Council.” Ms. Handy was referring to the most ambitious study of law students ever attempted. The Law School Admission Council is the organization that administers the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). At the time Handy’s article appeared, it was tracking 27,000 students who enrolled in U.S. law schools in the fall of 1991. The students were followed from law school entry to the bar exam. The Council issued its report in 1998, finding that 92 percent of white law-school graduates passed the bar exam on the first attempt, as did 61 percent of black graduates. This implies a black-white mean difference of 1.13 SD.
The Council also reported the results of repeated attempts at the bar exam. It found that eventually 97 percent of white and 78 percent of black law graduates passed, corresponding to a black-white mean difference of 1.11 SD.
The one-plus SD gap between black and white lawyers stubbornly refused to go away. Others, however, viewed the Council’s findings differently. “This study strongly refutes the myth that affirmative action policies tend to set students up for failure on the bar exam,” hallucinated Henry Ramsey Jr., a retired California state judge and member of the committee that oversaw the study.
Tamar Lewin, covering the Council’s report for the New York Times, characterized the Commission’s findings as “likely to provide important support for advocates of affirmative action.” Her column appeared under the headline: “Minorities Achieve High Success Rate in Bar Exams, Study Says.”
The fact is that affirmative action has stratified the bar by race and ability. Black lawyers lag behind their white colleagues in measured ability by about 1.1 SD. Affirmative action creates a racial gap at law-school entry that never goes away. When entrance credentials are controlled, racial differences mostly vanish. More than 20,000 adult blacks in the U.S. have an IQ of 130 or more, but because of affirmative action, the chance that your black lawyer will be one of them is vanishingly small.
===========================
I repost this for your benefit only!
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
Cobra writes,
“Come on now…Senator Obama?
Senator Barack Obama?
This guy…?”
“Barack Obama received his bachelor of arts degree in political science from Columbia in 1983, and his J.D., MAGNA CUM LAUDE, from Harvard Law School in 1991. While at Harvard, he served as the president of the Harvard Law Review.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama
Thank you again, E for providing another PERFECT example.”
=============================
SO WHAT, Cobra?
Obama is an Affirmative Action baby! I will prove it to you.
Cobra, you missed my point completely, because at Harvard Law School, membership in Harvard Law Review is also determined, in part, by racial preferences with RACIAL DE FACTO QUOTAS, as well as grades. Harvard Law Review uses RACE as a huge admissions factor. There is RACE BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN HARVARD LAW REVIEW FOR HONOR STUDENTS AT HLS AS WELL, WHICH GIVES BLACK MAGNA CUM LAUDE HARVARD LAW STUDENTS A LEG UP AND A HUGE BOOST OVER THE OTHER MAGNA CUM LAUDE STUDENTS LAW STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT PREFERRED RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES. These black magna cum laude students are certainly *QUALIFIED*, but they are not as *EQUALLY QUALIFIED*, ON THE AVERAGE AS A GROUP, as the summa cum laude students or other higher ranked non race and ethnic group preferred magna cum laude students, who are whites/Asians. These whites/Asians were the ones who were denied membership in Harvard Law Review because of their race or ethnicity. BTW, Asians are OVERREPRESENTED at Harvard Law School at 10% its students. Asians are 4% of the American population
Therefore, in the ZERO SUM GAME of admissions to Harvard Law Review, not all Harvard Law magna cum laude students are able to attain membership. Being magna cum laude may be a minimal qualification for Harvard Law Review. Not all HLS students, who are magna cum laude, are admitted to Harvard Law Review, because of the limited number of spots available. If one is black, and a magna cum laude, one IS GIVEN A RACIAL PREFERENCE OVER OTHER non-black and non-preferred higher ranked students (whites/Asians) who are even summa cum laude students or other higher ranked magna cum laude students. On the average, these higher ranked summa cum laude white/Asian students at Harvard Law, who were denied admission into Harvard Law Review, were displaced by the lower ranked black magna cum laude Harvard Law students, such as Obama, with the use of racial preferences for admissions into Harvard Law Review, thereby tainting the admissions process into Harvard Law Review for honor Harvard Law students.
Admissions into Harvard Law Review and being “qualified” are all relative. For one of any race and ethnicity, being magna cum laude at Harvard Law School may be a minimal qualification for membership into Harvard Law Review. Being black and magna cum at Harvard Law School is WORTH MORE than being non-black and a member of a non-preferred racial group (white/Asian) in the ZERO SUM game of admissions into Harvard Law Review.
Cobra, that’s a very simple concept to understand.
Of course, being President of Harvard Law Review, a political position attained by election via campaigning is due more to Obama’s political skills than his academic skills among his colleagues at the Harvard Law Review.
Again, with use of racial preferences and race based Affirmative Action in admissions to elite institutions and groups, as in admissions to the Harvard Law Review, being “qualified” or “minimally qualified” DOES NOT MEAN being “equally qualified”, on the average. This is a most important point that you, Cobra, seemed unable to grasp.
Another point is that the Latin honors of cum laude, magna cum laude, and summa cum laude, at least at Harvard College, were given to over the vast majority of the graduating classes. I don’t know what percentage of the Harvard Law students receive Latin honors upon their graduation. I will ask some of the graduates of Harvard Law School to find the answer. As far as I know, Obama, did not receive Latin honors upon graduation from Columbia College, and academically, he certainly did not graduate at the top or even near the top of his class, and yet he received an admission to Harvard Law School, a feat usually given to top students from the undergraduate colleges, including the Ivy, Columbia College. Obama was also given racial preferences in his admission to Columbia College, a feat usually given to top high school students and a few top few college transfer students. Obama transferred into Columbia from Occidental College and he admitted he was not a top student from his previous schools. Obama was given racial preferences in ALL his admissions and he is an Affirmative Action bady, by receiving a leg up and a tremendous boost solely based on his “black race” The irony is that Obama is one half white.
======================
The following is another post I had made in answer to your question:
THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR HARVARD LAW REVIEW, ESSENTIALLY AN HONOR SOCIETY, IS TAINTED WITH RACIAL PREFERENCES FAVORING APPLICANTS BASED ON SKIN COLOR
Cobra said,
“OK, perhaps in your zeal to discredit and attack Senator Obama (you would have the reader believe that graduating from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude was a mark of SHAME), perhaps you might read a little more about the process for selecting a President of the Review:”
======================
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
BLACKS ARE GIVEN A BOOST AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS TO HARVARD LAW REVIEW BASED ON THEIR SKIN COLOR.
In my opinion, this process demeans every black, if there are any, who are able to meet the standards for admission to Law Review that the rest of the group has met in gaining admission. If anything, this policy presents serious doubts regarding every black who is admitted, even though he/she may have met the minimal requirements, including getting magna cum laude as a requirement. The Latin honor of magna cum laude is a meritorious one, but admissions into Harvard Law Review is not necessarily meritorious, because, race based AA is used for blacks, even for magna cum laude blacks.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/membership.shtml
2007 Harvard Law Review Membership Selection Policies
Excerpts:
“In recent years, the number of students completing the competition has ranged from 200 to 255. Between 41 and 43 students are invited to join the Review each year.”
“Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis. Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review’s affirmative action policy.”
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY AND A DISCRETIONARY BASIS ARE USED FOR BLACKS GIVING THEM PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED SOLELY ON SKIN COLOR IN THEIR ADMISSIONS TO HARVARD LAW REVIEW.
This means the whole selection process is TAINTED, because selection is based on race with de facto racial quotas.
Again, Obama was magna cum laude, but SO WHAT?
There are many magna cum laude and summa cum laude whites and Asians, who were more qualified and were denied admissions to Law Review in this ZERO SUM GAME based on race preferences.
The ONLY WAY to erase these doubts that the readers/posters have is to ELIMINATE the policy of race preferences in admissions to Harvard Law Review. The selection process is absolutely LUDICROUS!
You cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time, Cobra.
Thank God, the Nobel Prizes in Science and Medicine or the Lasker Awards in Medical Research are not given with a race based Affirmative Action policy favoring a winner with the preferred skin color. God help us all if this happens.
BTW, Obama is an Affirmative Action baby, because he was not a stellar student and received race preferences in his admissions to Columbia College, as well as Harvard Law School. Please reread my previous postings.
Obama’s election as the President of the Harvard Law Review is likely due more to his political skills than his academic skills over the other candidates.
==========================
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
Hey Cobra,
You said, “Well, if he’s only “half-black”, shouldn’t you only be criticizing him “half” as much for racial preferences? By your theory, Obama deserves only “half” of your contempt, because technically, he’s “half” white, and therefore, at least half of him “deserved” a spot, and was “entitled” to be at Harvard with the other white kids?”
NO ONE IS “ENTITILED TO” OR “DESERVED” A SPOT BASED ON A RACIAL PREFERENCE. NOT ASIAN AMERICANS, NOT BLACK AMERICANS, NOT WHITE AMERICANS, NOT LATINO AMERICANS, NOT A BLACK OBAMA, NOT A WHITE OBAMA, NOT A HALF WHITE OBAMA, and NOT A HALF BLACK OBAMA. YOUR SENSE OF ENTILEMENT BASED ON RACE IS SIMPLY ASTOUNDING!
ADMISSIONS SHOULD BE RACE BLIND AND COLOR BLIND. I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE RACE OF OBAMA IN ADMISSIONS TO ELITE SCHOOLS AND THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES SHOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THE RACE OF OBAMA. BUT THEY DID KNOW, AND WITH THEIR RACE BASED AA ADMISSIONS PROCESS, THESE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEES GAVE OBAMA RACIAL PREFERENCES, IN ADMISSIONS, OR A LEG UP AND A TREMENDOUS BOOST
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS??
That’s what the readers of “Discriminations” have been trying to tell you in a most polite and civil manner, but you lack the ability to understand this or if you do understand, you have a complete denial of the facts. I will give the benefit of the doubt and attribute your refusal to accept the facts as a result of your ignorance, and not your lack of intelligence. Otherwise, I will call your postings RACIST!! Frankly speaking, I think you are intelligent enough to understand the readers/posters, and your refusal to accept their postings is simply RACIST!
BTW, even Al Sharpton said Obama was “not black enough”. You should ask the Reverend Al what he had in mind when he made this statement.
NO ONE IS ATTACKING ANY ANYONE HERE EXCEPT YOU, COBRA.
I am pointing out the flaws in your posts favoring race preferences which are inherently RACIST. Obama was an example of a major beneficiary of these race preferences, including his admission into Harvard Law Review. This is happening today because of political correctness in the academic community and American politics, not because race preferences are morally just and correct. The tide is turning in American politics to get rid of race preferences in admissions to elite schools.
Hey Cobra, I also know some Asian American Harvard Law graduates who graduated magna cum laude, as well as summa cum laude, who were either denied admissions to Harvard Law Review or saw Law Review as racially biased in its admissions. Some of these students did not even to apply to Law Review, simply because the admissions process to Harvard Review is TAINTED with RACIAL PREFERENCES. The institution of Law Review at Harvard is tainted because of RACE and de facto racial quotas are used in its admissions process.
========================
http://www.discriminations.us/2007/10/sauce_for_the_goose_glass_hous.html
Cobra,
Please make note of the following:
Obama’s daughters also would definitely be given racial preferences in admissions to the elite colleges, whether they needed them or not. That’s the kicker, when the present system of preferences includes race as a MAJOR DETERMINANT in the zero sum game of admissions using “diversity” as the rationalization for the race preference. This system of preferences may also include the ones for legacies, children of rich and famous VIPs, and the athletic preferences which benefit whites in admissions to the Ivies/Elites, but not exclusively. Collectively these preferences are known as “affirmation action for affluent whites” according to WSJ writer, Daniel Golden. However, blacks can also be beneficiaries of the said preferences.
Obama’s daughters may be beneficiaries of all these preferences, including the race preference, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL EVER NEED THEM FOR ADMISSIONS in our current admissions process to the Ivies/Elites.
In any case, they will be a shoo-in for admissions, since they will have the best chances any of the applicants, if and when they apply with the current admissions process in place.
The other KICKER in all this is that we may NEVER KNOW whether or not they will need race based AA for admissions by meeting a lower bar and being given a leg up, if the present system of admissions is used. They may have a “star” next to their accomplishments for many observers, as Barry Bonds will have a “star” on his 755 record breaking home run baseball, thereby tainting his accomplishment.
Hey Cobra,
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT, Cobra????
From Mr. Arthur Hu.
http://www.arthurhu.com/index/afact.htm
Hu’s Laws of Affirmative Action
(1) No two groups are equal unless they are stastically identical
What are the causes and effects of this “inequality” between the races? Are the causes and effects related to genetics or culture? There is a huge debate on what role genetics and IQ play in this “inequality” still going on since the book by Murray and Hernstein, THE BELL CURVE. Although I do not have enough research or evidence to back up my gut feeling, I think the causes and effects of the “statistical inequalities” between the races are a result of cultural differences. Nevertheless, the “statistical inequalities” do exist, especially the Black-White/Asian Test Score Gap. This GAP is independent of family income and parental education.
Click on:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
FACTS:
Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white/Asian children from families below the poverty line.
Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white/Asian children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
THESE FACTS ARE TRUE FOR MOST OF STANDARDIZED TESTING, NOT ONLY THE SAT.
This GAP has to be narrowed or closed, if it can be closed at all, by realizing that this GAP does exists, in order to find the solutions for narrowing or eliminating the GAP.
Here are some interesting perspectives on this matter.
Please click on:
http://www.nationalreview.com/15sept97/hu091597.html
AMERICA’S SCHOOLS
EDUCATION AND RACE
The performance of minority students in affluent areas refutes the prevailing educational shibboleths.
ARTHUR HU Mr. Hu is a writer living in Kirkland, Washington..
Excerpt:
[Economic and race-based interventions have never been shown to achieve the equality that was set as their justification in the first place. After all, the numbers that matter are not the percentage of blacks on the staff or in the classroom, but grade point average, reading and math test scores, and hours spent on homework and attendance. As Thomas Sowell and Lawrence Steinberg observe, if students of all races worked equally hard, their disparate rates of success and failure would plausibly lead to explanations based on, on the one hand, racism and poverty, or, on the other hand, innate superiority or inferiority. When they differ on every measure of effort, what else would you expect?]
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT, Cobra????
There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success.
===========================
Please click on:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell?printable=true
Books
None of the Above
What I.Q. doesn’t tell you about race.
by Malcolm Gladwell December 17, 2007
If what I.Q. tests measure is immutable and innate, what explains the Flynn effect—the steady rise in scores across generations?
Excerpts:
[The Asian-American success story had suddenly been turned on its head. The numbers now suggested, Flynn said, that they had succeeded not because of their higher I.Q.s. but despite their lower I.Q.s. Asians were overachievers. In a nifty piece of statistical analysis, Flynn then worked out just how great that overachievement was. Among whites, virtually everyone who joins the ranks of the managerial, professional, and technical occupations has an I.Q. of 97 or above. Among Chinese-Americans, that threshold is 90. A Chinese-American with an I.Q. of 90, it would appear, does as much with it as a white American with an I.Q. of 97.]
[There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success. But Flynn makes one more observation. The children of that first successful wave of Asian-Americans really did have I.Q.s that were higher than everyone else’s—coming in somewhere around 103. Having worked their way into the upper reaches of the occupational scale, and taken note of how much the professions value abstract thinking, Asian-American parents have evidently made sure that their own children wore scientific spectacles. “Chinese Americans are an ethnic group for whom high achievement preceded high I.Q. rather than the reverse,” Flynn concludes, reminding us that in our discussions of the relationship between I.Q. and success we often confuse causes and effects. “It is not easy to view the history of their achievements without emotion,” he writes. That is exactly right. To ascribe Asian success to some abstract number is to trivialize it.]
[That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles]
Again, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT, Cobra????
There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success.
===========================
Please read the book:
http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/1998/blckwhit.aspx
The Black-White Test Score Gap
Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., Brookings Institution Press 1998 c. 536pp.
Full Text Online
T[he test score gap between blacks and whites—on vocabulary, reading, and math tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence—is large enough to have far-reaching social and economic consequences. In their introduction to this book, Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips argue that eliminating the disparity would dramatically reduce economic and educational inequality between blacks and whites. Indeed, they think that closing the gap would do more to promote racial equality than any other strategy now under serious discussion. The book offers a comprehensive look at the factors that contribute to the test score gap and discusses options for substantially reducing it.]
[Although significant attempts have been made over the past three decades to shrink the test score gap, including increased funding for predominantly black schools, desegregation of southern schools, and programs to alleviate poverty, the median black American still scores below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests. The book brings together recent evidence on some of the most controversial and puzzling aspects of the test score debate, including the role of test bias, heredity, and family background. It also looks at how and why the gap has changed over the past generation, reviews the educational, psychological, and cultural explanations for the gap, and analyzes its educational and economic consequences.]
[The authors demonstrate that traditional explanations account for only a small part of the black-white test score gap. They argue that this is partly because traditional explanations have put too much emphasis on racial disparities in economic resources, both in homes and in schools, and on demographic factors like family structure. They say that successful theories will put more emphasis on psychological and cultural factors, such as the way black and white parents teach their children to deal with things they do not know or understand, and the way black and white children respond to the same classroom experiences. Finally, they call for large-scale experiments to determine the effects of schools’ racial mix, class size, ability grouping, and other policies.]
Again, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT, Cobra????
There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4653
‘Yellow in a White World’
Globalization of Yale University began early. To mark the 150th anniversary of the graduation of the first Chinese student Yung Wing from Yale, Asian American Cultural Center and other organizations launched a lecture series. The first lecture entitled, “Yellow in a White World”, was delivered by Harold Koh, Dean of the Yale Law School on September 27, 2004.
Transcript of ‘Yellow in a White World’
Harold Hongju Koh
YaleGlobal, 27 September 2004
Thank you, Peter, for that most generous introduction. As the father of a happy Yale freshman, let me say that Yale College is very lucky to have a dean like you.
I also want to thank the Asian American Cultural Center for organizing this event, and the offices of the President, the Secretary, the Graduate School, and the Association of Yale Alumni for all joining hands to make this lecture series happen.
Let me start with an embarrassing confession. I have lived in New Haven for 43 years, and I have taught at Yale for nearly 20. But until recently, when I was asked to give this lecture, I had never ever heard of Yung Wing.
Or at least so I thought. More on that in a little while.
Who, exactly, was Yung Wing? Yung Wing was the first Asian to graduate from Yale. He could well have been the first Asian to obtain a bachelor’s degree from any university in the United States. And so, in a very real sense, he is the spiritual ancestor of every one of us of Asian heritage who studies or works here at Yale today.
By all accounts, Yung Wing was a remarkable person. Born near the island of Macao in Guangdong Province in 1828, when he was just seven years ago, Yung Wing was brought to meet Mrs. Gutzlaff, the wife of an English missionary who had opened a Christian school near his home. Apparently, Mrs. Gutzlaff bore little resemblance to the gorgeous Deborah Kerr we all saw in The King and I, who cheerfully sang “Getting to know you,” to a smiling throng of Asian children. Instead, Mrs. Gutzlaff was a huge and frightening woman. As Yung Wing later recalled in his autobiography, My Life in China and America, as Mrs. Gutzlaff “came forward to welcome me in her long and full flowing white dress . . . I actually trembled all over with fear at her imposing proportions. . . . I clung to my father in fear. . . . [A] new world had dawned on me.”
From that day forward, Yung Wing had become a yellow man in a white world.
At the beginning, Yung Wing hated his English school so much that he tried to run away from it. But overcoming his fear, Yung Wing soon progressed from Mrs. Gutzlaff’s school to another missionary school, where he came to meet a minister called Samuel Robbins Brown, who held his doctorate in divinity from Yale. In 1845, Yung Wing began to dream about crossing the Pacific. He wrote an essay for his school called “An Imaginary Voyage to New York and Up the Hudson.”
Just two years later, Yung Wing made that voyage for real, when he accompanied Dr. Brown to the United States to enroll in Monson Academy in Massachusetts. Like Dr. Brown, the principal of Yung Wing’s new school, the Rev. Charles Hammond, was a Yale graduate. And so it came to pass that in 1850, with financial aid provided by a scholarship by the Ladies Association of Savannah, Georgia, where Dr. Brown’s sister lived, Yung Wing became the first Asian ever to enroll at Yale College.
As you can imagine, mid 19th Century Yale was not an easy place for Yung Wing. His Yale class had ony 98 members. It had precious few people of color, no women, and virtually no non-Christian. As the only yellow in a white world, Yung Wing was at best, a curiosity, at worst, a freak.
During his freshman year, Yung Wing wore his Chinese tunic and wore his hair in a topknot, but by second year, he was dressed and groomed like an American. Like many freshmen, he sweated over his studies until midnite every night. He worked so hard that he took little or no exercise. He had almost no social life. His sophomore year he almost flunked differential and integral calculus, which his autobiography said he absolutely “abhorred and detested.” To pay his tuition, he worked as a waiter in his residential college, as well as a librarian in one of the college debating societies. Yet remarkably, in the words of an admirer, the Rev. Joseph Twichel, he “made a sensation that was felt beyond the college walls by bearing off repeated prizes for English composition.” Imagine that, coming from China in 10th grade and winning the Yale Prize for English Composition just a few years later!
Asia and its needs were never far from his mind. Yung Wing took long walks with his classmate, Carrol Cutler, who later became president of Western Reserve College (now Case Western Reserve in Cleveland). They discussed how to ensure that the rising generation in China would have the same advantages that Yung Wing had enjoyed. They came up with the idea of an educational mission, whereby the Chinese government would send hundreds of students like Yung Wing to America for their education.
When Yung Wing graduated in 1854, 150 years ago, he sailed for Hong Kong on a voyage of 151 days. When the Chinese pilot came on board in Hong Kong Harbor, and spoke to the passengers, Yung Wing was shocked to discover that he could understand what the pilot said only with great difficulty. When he himself spoke, he could not make the pilot understand him. Yung Wing found himself so changed by his Western experience that he now felt out of place everywhere, even in his own homeland.
Like many who navigate two cultures, Yung Wing felt caught between two stools. In America, he felt Asian, but in Asia, he felt American. Yung Wing became a naturalized citizen of the United States during his junior year at Yale, but when he came back to attend his 10th reunion at Yale in 1864, he volunteered to fight in the Union Army. His offer was declined. Not only had he almost forgotten how to speak Chinese, but having left as a young boy, he now had no friends in China. In the words of Dr. Twichell, “he could not fail to encounter among his own people, prejudice, suspicion, hostility.” With this history, Yung Wing could easily have been forgiven had he given up any grand plans and simply sought to fit back into Chinese life. But instead, he continued to engage in various projects to promote China’s modernization. He went to work for the tea and silk business for ten years, and in 1864, he entered the service of the Qing Dynasty Chinese government. Because of his English language skills, he was commissioned to purchase machinery and arms in the United States for the Chinese military. In 1870, the so-called Tientsin Massacre occurred, in which a Chinese mob murdered a large number of male and female French Roman Catholic Missionaries. To compensate, the Chinese Government appointed a commission to figure out how to make compensation. Yung Wing–remembering his discussions years earlier with his friends at Yale–submitted a proposal to the high commissioners suggesting that the Chinese government send more than 100 Chinese youths abroad, to facilitate mutual cultural understanding and thereby to develop the reach and resources of the Chinese empire.
And so it was that in the late 1870s, the so-called “Yung Wing mission” began, whereby some 120 Chinese boys and girls came to the United States to study at schools and colleges throughout the Northeast, including Yale. The leader sent to supervise the mission was Yung Wing himself. And so in 1872, 18 years after his college graduation, Yung Wing returned to New Haven to set up the mission. He eventually made his headquarters in the city of Hartford. There, Yung Wing started Hartford’s progressive and innovative Chinese Educational Commission School. Three years later, he married an American woman, Miss Mary Kellogg, of Avon, Connecticut. And in 1876, Yung Wing received an honorary degree from Yale Law School, which probably makes him–I now realize –the first Asian ever to receive a degree from the school of which I am now dean!
Fearing that the students were becoming too Americanized, Chinese conservatives abruptly terminated Yung Wing’s mission in 1881. But during the nine years that the Chinese scholars studied in Hartford, they gave China her first generation of the 20th century railroad builders, engineers, medical doctors, naval admirals and diplomats. In the decades that followed, many of the students of Yung Wing’s mission went on to play important roles in China’s development.
As for Yung Wing himself, he continued as a full-fledged diplomat. In 1874 he went to Peru to investigate the affairs of Chinese laborers; in 1878 he was appointed Assistant Minister Resident of China to Washington. In 1882, after the Chinese students were recalled, and the educational scheme abandoned, he returned to China, and was appointed an official and as of Kiang Su province; When his American wife Mary grew ill, he returned to Hartford, where he nursed her until she died in 1886. Both Yung Wing and his wife now lie buried in the Cedar Hill Cemetery in Hartford. Their two sons, Morrison and Bartlett, both went to Yale, and his grandson, Frank, who lives in Hong Kong, returned to Yale four years ago for the unveiling of his grandfather’s portrait.
I have told this story in some detail, because very few of us here know it. I myself did not know it. Perhaps in Yung Wing’s story you heard echoes of your own life. Let me tell you how his tale resonates with mine.
My own parents came to the United States from Korea about 100 years after Yung Wing. My father was one of the first Koreans to study law in America.
Like Yung Wing, my parents came away from their educational experience determined to promote mutual understanding between Korea and the United States. When, in 1960, the first democratically elected government came to power in South Korea, my father Dr. Kwang Lim Koh, was appointed first as Korean Ambassador to the United Nations, and then as Korean Minister to the United States in Washington. And when, in 1961, a military coup overthrew my father’s democratic government, my parents turned for help to Walt W. Rostow, then the Deputy National Security Adviser to the President. Through Walt Rostow’s intervention with his brother, Eugene, the Dean of Yale Law School, my parents received positions teaching East Asian Law and Society at Yale Law School, the first such course ever offered in this country. And so it was that in 1961, 43 years ago, my own family moved here to New Haven, and I first entered the halls of Yale Law School.
Like Yung Wing, my parents helped hundreds of Korean students come here to study. Countless Korean students ate dinner at our house. In 1952, my parents founded East Rock Institute, a nonprofit organization on Dwight Street, that has as its mission promoting cultural understanding between East and West. Starting thirty years ago, they began an annual conference on Koreans and Korean-Americans, which last year ripened into the national conference of Korean students, KASCON, that was held here at Battell Chapel. Both of my parents also went on to teach at universities here in Connecticut, where my father became fascinated with the story of the Yung Wing Educational Mission and aggressively sought after its history. My father’s students wrote term papers about the later history of the Chinese students who came to study in Connecticut as part of Yung Wing’s mission. The daughter of one of the Yung Wing students became my father’s colleague and told my father many personal stories about the various Yung Wing students. Some apparently became ambassadors–one even became the Chinese ambassador to Korea–others became government officials and educators. And so it was that while preparing for this lecture this past weekend, I suddenly realized that Yung Wing was not a stranger to me after all. I had actually first heard of Yung Wing at the family dinner table 35 years ago.
What does Yung Wing’s story tell us? It tells us what it means to be yellow in a white world.
His is a story of choices, a story of hope, a story of obligation, and a story of obligation. Let me say a word about each of these.
First, and most obviously, Yung Wing’s story is a lesson about making our own, difficult choices. How easy it would have been for Yung Wing to stay in China his whole life. How easy it would have been for him to return there from Yale, and never venture back. Instead, he made hard choices and took risks. He consciously placed himself between two cultures, although the price was that he never felt truly at home in either place.
I told you that my father was an international lawyer, a professor, and a diplomat. When I was a boy, you might have imagined that he would have wanted me, his son, to also be an international lawyer, professor and a diplomat. But one day when I was in elementary school, we were watching the lawyer show Perry Mason on TV; I turned to my father and asked whether maybe I, too, should consider a career as a lawyer. My father turned to me and said just two words: “Study Physics.”
His words had a profound influence on me. I followed them for nearly ten years. But it was not until later that I realized the four assumptions that underlay what he had said. His first assumption: law is a confrontational profession and confrontation is not our way. We are Pacific people, in both senses of that word. We believe not in confrontation, but in harmony and order. Law is not for us, because conflict is not our way.
Secondly, English is the language of the law, and English is not our language. We cannot study law, because law is not our language.
Third, law is for insiders and we are basically outsiders in this country. Law rests on an old boy network and we are new boys in this country.
Fourth and finally, law is not an exact science and we will suffer from inexactness. How often did I come home to find on my desk a New York Times story that said “Chinese Physicist or Japanese Mathematician wins the Nobel Prize?” If an Asian is a better mathematician or scientist, he seemed to say, the numbers will not lie.
Now if you think about it, each of these was also a reason why my father favored physics as my profession. Physics was not confrontational; it had its own harmony and order. Physics was a universal language, and we could speak it as well as they. Physics was a profession that is open to whites and Asians alike, and no one could discriminate against you, because the numbers don’t lie.
His position had its logic. The Asian part of me accepted it, but the American part, of course, rebelled.
I thought, “maybe I am not like them, Dad, but I am not just like you either. Maybe you feel uncomfortable with the adversary process, but I was accustomed to debate, to speaking up for rights. And to the extent that law requires not just confrontation, but pacific dispute resolution, it was something I could do. An insider’s network may rely on politics, but I felt I could do that kind of politics. And finally, it did not matter that law was not an exact science, because, as it turned out, I was not very good at exact sciences!” And so I told him that I did want to be a lawyer, that being a lawyer was consistent with my Asian-American identity. For better or for worse, it was my choice. And it is a choice that I feel better and better about every day.
The irony, of course, is that my ultimate career choice pleased my father far more than his own proposal. When I first told my father that I was going to work as a lawyer, he said, “In Korea, law is the second most despised profession.” I asked, “what is the most despised profession?” He said, “being an actor.” And then, when I went to work for the Justice Department, he asked, “who’s your client?” I said, “Ronald Reagan, I guess.” He looked at me and said, “You mean to say that you’re a lawyer for an actor?”
But then, when I came to Yale to become an international law professor, he said, “Well, finally you’re a teacher. A sensei. In Korean, a sonsaengnim. You are professor, an international lawyer, and maybe someday you will be a diplomat. Just like your father.”
There is a second lesson that we learn from Yung Wing, and that is a story of hope, of the possibility of overcoming discrimination. Exactly 100 years after Yung Wing graduated from Yale, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education. Even today, fifty years later, the struggles of Brown are still with us. I was born in 1954, just seven months after Brown was decided. And so I have lived my entire life in Brown’s shadow. I first felt the challenges of Brown in 1959, when my father went to the Korean embassy and my family moved to Takoma Park, Maryland. My older brother came home from his first day of elementary school to tell me that his third grade class was half white and half black. When recess time was called, the black kids and the white kids had silently divided into different baseball teams and started playing with each other. As an Asian, my brother literally did not know what team he was supposed to be on. And so he had sat alone for all of recess, understanding for the first time what it meant to be isolated by segregation.
Five years later, we had moved here to New Haven to attend the Edgewood Avenue School in Westville. During my sixth-grade year, students from the Winchester School in inner-city New Haven were bused into our class. The boy who arrived was a short and wiry African-American named Richard. For the first few days, we sat inches apart, eying each other warily. On the third day, he leaned over and said, “Man, this classroom is much nicer than the one we were in.” By the end of the year, we were friends. And I had learned both how integration can breed understanding, and how separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal.
One day, Richard asked me who was the greatest baseball player of all time. I told him, “Babe Ruth.” He said, “Man, you’re wrong!” (For some reason, he always called me “Man,” even though I was only 10 years old). I asked him, “So who do you think is the greatest baseball player of all time?” He answered, “Jackie Robinson, Number 42.” When I asked him why, he answered, “Because Jackie did everything Ruth did and at a time when everyone wanted him to fail.” His answer moved me, and from that day forward, whenever I am asked who the greatest baseball player was, I answer, ”Jackie Robinson.”
I remembered that story years later when I read Richard Kluger’s unforgettable masterpiece Simple Justice. By that time, as a budding lawyer myself, I was as moved by the story of the lawyers as by that of the clients. I read about the stirring partnership between African-American lawyers like Thurgood Marshall, Spotswood Robinson, and Constance Baker Motley and white attorneys like Jack Greenberg and future Yale Law Professors like Charles Black and Lou Pollak. I read about how the lawyers in Brown argued cases in towns where they could not eat at the local restaurants, where they could not sleep at the local hotels, how they typed briefs in the back of their cars, cited cases from memory because they had no libraries, and nevertheless won case after case after case, finally culminating in the unanimous victory in Brown. I decided that like Jackie Robinson, Thurgood Marshall must have been the greatest American lawyer of all time, because he did everything that Daniel Webster did– and won a promise of equality for millions–at a time when so many wanted him to fail.
Like Thurgood Marshall, Yung Wing was a pioneer. When he was at Yale, think of how lonely he must have been. Think of how discouraged he must have been when the Chinese government recalled his mission to China. How could he have imagined the changes that have come in the years since? When Yung Wing came to America, there were only a handful of Asians in the entire country.
When I attended law school a century later, there were still almost no Asians in my class. At Harvard Law School in the late 1970s, the entire Korean-American Student Society consisted of two people: my sister Jean and me. Whenever the names of Asians appeared in the cases–names like Yick Wo, Fong Yue Ting, Wong Wing, Wong Kim Ark, Gordon Hirabayashi, and Fred Korematsu–they were always litigants, and never lawyers. On the rare occasions that these cases were mentioned, my classmates would snicker. And as I read the history of Asian-Americans in the Supreme Court, I read a record of almost unbroken sadness. It was a story not of victors and justice, but of victims and injustice. It was the story of Americans who had been treated as foreigners. In Justice Jackson’s words from his Korematsu dissent, they were Americans victimized “because they were born of parents as to whom they had no choice and because they belonged to a race from which there is no way to resign.”
Now, if you look out over our classrooms, you see a very different picture. In the 2000 Census, more than 10 million Asian-Americans are listed, nearly a 50% growth in the previous decade. Asian-Americans now constitute nearly 4% of the U.S. population: there are 2.4 million Chinese Americans, 1.9 million Filipino-Americans, 1.7 Indian Americans, 1.1 million Vietnamese Americans, 1 million Korean Americans, and close to 1 million Japanese Americans.
When I went to the Yale freshmen parents gathering, Asians were everywhere. One fellow parent turned to me and said, “I understand that the faculty here at Yale is excellent.” What could I do? I just nodded, sagely.
And our students today are having a different kind of Asian experience, a Pan-Asian experience. They are not a collection of minorities within minorities. They band together and enjoy their Asianness together. For me, this is symbolized by the yearly gathering of our Pacific Asian and Native American Law Students Group, which takes place at East Buffet. It is a sprawling, raucous Pan-Asian gathering in which Asians of all stripes–by birth, by marriage, by adoption, and by choice–exchange cuisines and enjoy being together.
And the world in which our students now live is not nearly as white as it once was. There is a huge rise in the Latino population, a noticeable increase in Native Americans and foreign students. America is a strikingly diverse country: along with Canada and Australia we are one of the only successfully diverse nations on earth. Having visited Bosnia and Kosovo, where ethnic groups cannot live together without fighting, I cannot tell you how important it is that we not take this ethnic diversity for granted.
There is a third part of Yung Wing’s story, and that is a story of obligation. Notice that he did not simply pursue his private interests. Instead, he felt a sense of public service, of obligation to his community. In the words of the filmmaker, Spike Lee, he felt a duty to uplift his race. What is the content of this obligation? We must, as my friend David Wilkins argues, move from the is of race consciousness to the ought of making it an obligation to do something about your race, an obligation located in a sense of community and solidarity which is the source of our strength and our distinctiveness. Let me suggest four images: our obligations to be a bridge, a ladder, a beacon, and a boat.
For me, the main reason I chose law over physics was that fate had placed me between two cultures. As a physicist, that fact would have been a curious irrelevancy. Instead, by pursuing a career as an international lawyer, professor, and diplomat, I have tried, like Yung Wing, to build a bridge between our two cultures.
Yung Wing saw himself not just as a bridge, but as a ladder: a support and mentor for other Asian students on their way up.
Our third obligation is to serve as a beacon. As Asians, we inevitably stand out in a white world. Let me suggest that if we are distinctive, if we must stand out, then perhaps we have a special obligation actually to stand out, to serve as a beacon and role model for others.
And to whom do we owe our obligations? After I earned tenure, I was asked by my students to start an International Human Rights Clinic, which brought suit against the U.S. government on behalf of Haitian boat people, seeking asylum in America. I was stunned at how many Asians said to me, “Why are you fighting for the Haitians? Why don’t you work for our people?” And I would say to them, “Do you mean to say that in the Haitian exclusion, you don’t see the Chinese exclusion? In the Haitian internment, you don’t see the Japanese internment? In the Haitian boat people, you don’t see the Vietnamese boat people? In the Haitian refugees, don’t you see Cambodian refugees? In the quest for Haitian democracy, don’t you see Korean democracy? If you don’t see the principle, then you don’t understand the point–that maybe we all came in different boats, but we’re all in the same boat now.” And it is our obligation, I submit, to offer that welcoming boat to others.
Fourth and finally, Yung Wing’s story is a story of accomplishment. His is not just a single accomplishment, but a legacy of accomplishment. His story tells you how one person–even a solitary yellow in a white world–can make a difference. Just look at the number of ways here at Yale, that the legacy of this one man continues. In one of his last acts, Yung Wing donated his Chinese book collection, which at the time consisted of more than 1200 volumes, to Yale, where it now forms the nucleus of Sterling Memorial Library’s East Asian Collection, one of the finest in the West. In 1901, the Yale Foreign Missionary Society was formed to promote one-on-one contacts and English language instruction by recent Yale graduates in China. In 1943 that Association was renamed the Yale-China Association, which to this day sends dozens of recent Yale graduates annually to teach English and American studies.
Asian Americans now constitute 13-15% of the Yale student body. 10% of the foreign students who study here are of Asian ancestry.
At Yale Law School, where I teach, another legacy of Yung Wing is the Law School’s China Law Center, which is devoted exclusively to increasing understanding of China’s legal system and supporting China’s legal reform process. To these ends, the Center sponsors research, academic exchange, and projects with legal experts in China on judicial reform, administrative law, and legal education–and has brought a number of leading Chinese scholars to study here.
My point is this: people like Yung Wing can change institutions. Institutions can build legacies. Legacies can make history.
And to show how events can come full circle, this year, 43 years after my family first arrived in New Haven, my sister, Jean Koh Peters is a professor at Yale Law School, where this summer I became the Dean. And this fall my daughter Emily entered the Yale class of 2008, from which she will graduate exactly 60 years after my parents first came to America, and more than 150 years after Yung Wing. And just a week before her classes began, the presidents and vice-presidents of 12 of China’s leading universities came to New Haven for an intensive two-week session on the American university. And so it was that in late August, I had the incredible experience of sitting in Woolsey Hall–still yellow in a white world–but now finding myself not just an American citizen and a lifelong resident of New Haven, but also the Dean of Yale’s Law School, the father of a Yale freshman, the brother of a Yale professor, listening to my friend, Yale’s president Rick Levin, describe a modern-day Chinese mission to New Haven as proof of Yale’s 21st century commitment to globalization.
In the end, what Yung Wing’s story and mine tell you is just how open a society America still is. A few years ago, when I was representing the United States government at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, I sat at dinner next to the Bangladeshi Ambassador to the United Nations. We struck up a conversation, and told each other our life stories. At the end, he looked at me and said, “So what you are telling me is that your father was an Ambassador to the United States. And in only one generation, you have become an Ambassador from the United States. In Bangladesh that could never happen. America is the only country in the world where that could happen, and that I have to believe, is why you are the mightiest nation.” Your openness, your diversity, he was telling me, is the source of your moral power.
So that, my friends, is Yung Wing’s message to us. His story tells us what it means to be yellow in a white world. His is a story of choices, a story of hope, a story of obligation, a story of accomplishment. And it is, in the end, a story of Justice: the justice that Asian Americans seek, and the justice Asian Americans can create. As the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “the moral arc of the universe is long, but it arcs toward justice.”
If Yung Wing were here, I think he would have to agree.
Thank you.
Harold Koh, Dean of the Yale Law School, delivered the first lecture in this series.
Rights:
© 2004 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization