<p>
</p>
<p>It was my lame attempt at humor. It is a quote from the movie The Sixth Sense, about a kid who sees ghosts.</p>
<p>Yeah…so…*? I see KIDS like that… but no, I do not see the actual dead people. That kid had a real under represented perspective.</p>
<p>Oh, I get it! You think I’m like the child psychologist in the movie! I am a Child PSYCHIATRIST!. </p>
<p>I like to think way more hardcore. I’m the one kids see when everything that CAN go wrong, DOES go wrong. I am blown away by how many different things can go wrong.</p>
<p>" I LOVE that movie, but the first time I saw it, they had started it early, and I walked in in the middle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The objective was to offer a helping hand to those that are shut out from the places of high academe (paraphrasing the Stanford President here). That doesn’t fit the profile of high income URMs, but does fit the profile of low income ORMs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NO I am not. I said it was about equalizing the playing field. You don’t need to equalize anything because you are on equal standing with whites. Period… </p>
<p>Unless of course I missed the part about systemic oppression of Asians in American History or the special about Asians living in ghettos, dropping out of school and not going to college.</p>
<p>Wanting to repeal AA is basically a glutton just wanting MORE cake… Or a better analogy would be like how the forward castes in India whine about the lower castes getting some preferential treatment now after being marginalized for so long… I’m sure I got that right… Never did understand the caste system in India… That’s some complex discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not a threat. That’s a historically correct assessment. This country has waves of conservative interest. It waxed during the election time but it’s waning now. Betting on a weak partner is foolish.</p>
<p>If you take that as a threat then what can I say…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not have a theory for everything, especially about something where I don’t understand the context. I do believe, however, that Tiger Parenting can push a kid far above the normal level that the kid would have reached if left on his/her own.</p>
<p>I am fascinated watching liberals lie. </p>
<p>Just as much as I am fascinated watching conservatives deny.</p>
<p>I have come to the conclusion that mind-set zealots, of any ilk, are the most horrible and hurtful kind of people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the Chinese have been oppressed quite a bit in the 19th century when they were used as slave labor to build railroads, but I am not going to go there as most Asians in the USA came after 1965. </p>
<p>Incidentally several Black scholars estimate that the up to 2/3rds of AA seats go to kids of African immigrants who are not descendants of slaves. But such a system is perfectly acceptable to xiggi. I think it is dysfunctional.</p>
<p>But I still don’t get why Asians have to give up seats to make the playing field level, when Whites caused the playing field to not be level in the first place? Are you saying that because Asians work hard to get to a level playing field with Whites they should be punished and seats taken away from them to give to URMs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IndianParent has it exactly right. Let’s bring up the direct quote from Casper: Affirmative action is based on the judgment that a policy of true equal opportunity needs to create opportunities for members of historically underrepresented groups to be drawn into various walks of life from which they might otherwise be shut out.</p>
<p>“Might otherwise be shut out”? Who is that referring to? Suppose it referred to all individuals from “historically underrepresented groups.” Then, Casper is implying that without racial preferences, Stanford would not have a single student from a “historically underrepresented group”; they would all be “shut out.” That’s absurd. If Casper actually believed that, it would mean he has a very low opinion of the talent of our nation’s black youth.</p>
<p>Suppose instead that it referred to students who were both from “historically underrepresented groups” and poor. Well, it is certainly possible that without outreach, poor but academically passionate students might not consider applying to Stanford, even though it’s likely that if they were admitted, they wouldn’t have to pay anything to attend. It is plausible that this hypothetical student is the one who would’ve been “shut out” of Stanford without the true, original affirmative action of aggressive nondiscrimination and outreach.</p>
<p>Therefore, xiggi’s source contradicts xiggi. According to Casper, it IS an objective of affirmative action to seek out students who without the policy “might otherwise be shut out.” That can only refer to POOR “underrepresented” minorities, for if it referred to ALL “underrepresented” minorities, it would mean that without the policy, they couldn’t possibly end up at Stanford, which is a gross insult to their capabilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m saying that by coming here to America whether last year or in 1965 you jumped into the queue. </p>
<p>The queue, as it were, in America was imbalanced. Whites were on one side and URMS on the other. While that disparity is growing smaller you are most definitely on the white side so to speak.</p>
<p>So…</p>
<p>Yes, you need to chip in. That’s the social contract. The other side of that coin is that when URMS are at a level playing field America, and therefore any Asians in it, will benefit and that if for any reason Asians become URMS then they will still benefit. </p>
<p>Which is why anyone wanting to eliminate AA is silly. The smart thing to do would be to push for updating it AND equalizing the playing field for everyone, benefiting everyone and avoiding all the ill will and controversy…</p>
<p>(We, of course, are referring to race, but I am perfectly willing to adjust who and what AA protects and even how and when it protects them.)</p>
<p>As to the Chinese… LOL… They weren’t slave labor. They could leave, they came here on their own AND they had small businesses even then. They could read and practice their religion and they managed to keep their culture. Now, that one group, that were actually slave labor… Well, they didn’t get ANY of those benefits so I’d probably reconsider what slave labor means. And don’t even start on Native Americans… </p>
<p>Out of all the minorities there are only two that have TRULY been oppressed systematically, for hundreds of years, resulting in destroyed cultures and a near failing population… These two DON’T include Asians unless you get technical and point out that NA’s came from Asia…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and therefore,…what?</p>
<p>One point about talent. Let’s say you go to the concert one day, and listen to a piano piece played by a young musician. It is simply beautiful, and brings out all the emotions. You turn towards your date and say, wow, this kid has got talent.</p>
<p>Do you know what is going on behind the scene? </p>
<p>The kid is practicing 6-8 hours a day, every day, and not even the specific piece. The kid is doing a million other things that gets playing the piano into muscle memory. What to you sounds like a brilliant mix of emotion, is really a series of exact fingering that was learned in a way not that different from learning to play a racquet sport (for example).</p>
<p>To you, it is talent. In reality, it is all practice, practice, practice.</p>
<p>Same goes for my favorite subject, math. Do you have any idea how hard math scholars work? And they are often not even successful. Success actually has a lot to do with luck in my experience. But talent is all hard work.</p>
<p><a href=“We,%20of%20course,%20are%20referring%20to%20race,%20but%20I%20am%20perfectly%20willing%20to%20adjust%20who%20and%20what%20AA%20protects%20and%20even%20how%20and%20when%20it%20protects%20them.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now you are talking. Replace race by SES and I am in full agreement with you about the social contract. Not a single complaint from me there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Talent without practice is still talent. Practice without talent is nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Look up the definition, it is not hard. Talent is inborn or innate ability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not good enough… A better solution is to include race and add SES. The playing field is still uneven. But catching others (regardless of race) that are slipping through the cracks is not a bad idea.</p>
<p>Blacks and latinos still need more help statistically than any other race. That, however, doesn’t mean that the other races don’t have subgroups needing help.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. he doesn’t. And neither do you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No amount of misleading paraphrasing and erroneous restating of words will make your specious claims and suppositions about SES come true. My friend, you are now grasping at straws in the most pathetic way. </p>
<p>If President Casper wanted to talk about poor(er) students, he would have. Directly and clearly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you must believe that Asian kids are born with talent. I simply don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you are not really OK with another definition AA, contrary to what you said.</p>
<p>Xiggi, One observation. You often just state an opinion and claim it to be true without providing supporting rationale or evidence. Have you noticed that in yourself?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He didn’t talk about Latinos either. If we are going to be literal …</p>
<p>Let me ask you a straight question. Who do you think deserve more help? Rich and upper middle class African Americans who are not descendants of slaves, or poor Asian Americans? This is not about AA. I am just trying to gauge your social compass here.</p>