Daily Princetonian Makes Fun of Stereotypical Asian Students

nbachris2788 · January 22, 2007, 9:21pm

^

The U.S. may trump China, but Canada’s contribution would be meager at best. But China’s really revved up for 2008, and they should be neck and neck with the States.

Back to the topic, here’s an enlightening response by Jeff Yang, a SF Chronicle writer who happens to be an Asian Ivy League grad who doesn’t speak in broken English. In fact, he seems quite erudite!

"Since publishing Wednesday’s joke issue, we have learned that some of our readers were offended by a column satirizing Asian stereotypes. The response surprised us: We did not seek to offend, and we sincerely regret having upset some of our readers.

Many criticisms of the column, however, do not recognize its purpose. Using hyperbole and an unbelievable string of stereotypes, we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous. We embraced racist language in order to strangle it. At its worst, the column was a bad joke; at its best, it provoked serious thought about issues of race, fairness and diversity.

The column in question was penned by a diverse group of students — including several Asians on our senior editorial staff — who had no malicious intent. Given our purpose, we are deeply troubled by and reject the allegation of racism.

We welcome debate about our column, especially in the pages of this newspaper. We hope our readers will see the column for what it is.

Chanakya Sethi '07, editor-in-chief; Christian Burset '07, Neir Eshel '07, Anna Huang '07, Nancy Khov '07, Alex Maugeri '07, Tom Senn '07 and Ellen Young '07, Editors, 130th Managing Board"

<hr>

Now, okay, these are kids. They have room to grow and learn. Most of them will go into fields that have little to do with media or entertainment or journalism. But regardless of what industry they decide to join, they’ve got to learn that this kind of post facto rationalization will never fly.

“We have learned…the response surprised us”? Uh…guys, you don’t think you could have guessed that some of your readers would be offended? How tone-deaf can you possibly be? Sure, Dave Chappelle and Sasha Baron Cohen can be offensive (though arguably, that’s in service of a larger message they’re trying to convey); they are, however, absolutely aware that some, if not all, of their viewers will be offended. That’s their job as humorists–to get people uncomfortable, so that they have an emotional reaction (and if they learn something, cool–but at least they won’t walk out with the same blank sheet of paper they walked in with).

These dudes at DP didn’t even think it through that far–they just assumed that everyone would get it, because, you know, Princetonians are funny. Like Bill Bradley, he’s hilarious. And Brooke Shields. My sides hurt.

And then there’s their creative nonapology: “Many criticisms of the column, however, do not recognize its purpose…we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous. We embraced racist language in order to strangle it. At its worst, the column was a bad joke; at its best, it provoked serious thought about issues of race, fairness and diversity.”

Reading this made me snort my ramen noodles out of my nose. “You didn’t laugh, because you didn’t understand/have no sense of humor/are dumb and ugly and should die.” That’s the Rosie Carolla defense all over again. Why is it always the least subtle, least inventive, most humor-challenged “comedians” who accuse other people of not having a sense of funny? Worse yet, they didn’t just see this as thigh-slappin’ high-larious. It was also supposed to “provoke serious thought”…good grief.

The editorial continues with some figleafing (noting that there are several Asians on the senior edit staff, including, presumably, the editor in chief) and then this kicker: “Given our purpose, we are deeply troubled by and reject the allegation of racism.”

They use highfalutin’ SAT words, but again, this is exactly the same tone and
structure as the spin put out by Rosie Carolla. First, they apologize for hurting your feelings. Then they imply that if your feelings are hurt, it’s because you suck. Then they say THEIR feelings were hurt because you called them on their crap. Then they reject your argument out of hand, because, you know, it’s not what they said, it’s what they meant.

Or, to put it another way: “I didn’t mean to crush your head with this two-by-four. I meant to tickle you with it, even though I swung it with both hands as hard as I could and aimed at your temple. The reason you didn’t laugh is because you have a thin skull. And I reject your allegation that you were hurt, because it was not my intent to cause you multiple fractures and brain damage. Finally, by accusing me of hurting you, you hurt my feelings, so really, I’m the victim here–beeyotch!”

The note’s conclusion, referring to the board’s “regrettable mistake” (e.g., thinking that other people had a sense of humor) and requesting a “constructive debate on race and race-related issues” is, like most Rosie Carolla non-apologies, too little and too late.

See, we threw a grenade into an outhouse, and now we want to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” in the flying fecal matter that has erupted. This guy Jian Li has submitted a suit against the college with the Department of Education. People are already ****ed off in 15 directions, at all levels of the administration and faculty and student body. Some Asians think Li has a point. Some think he’s a cancer. Lots of white people think exactly what the op-ed piece seemed to suggest–that Asians like Li don’t belong, because they get good grades but have no soul, or something. And as the Managing Board of the official daily newspaper of the Princeton campus, we’ve decided that the best way to create an “opportunity…for constructive debate” is to run this joke op-ed…? Tiger pride, yo!

After the Michael Richards N-bomb flap, Malcolm Gladwell, of “Blink” and “Tipping Point” fame, suggested on his blog (<a href=“http://www.malcolmgladwell.com%5B/url%5D”>www.malcolmgladwell.com</a>) a framework for determining if a statement is genuinely racist (I smell a book coming on, Mal). He brings it down to three factors:

–Content: “What is said clearly makes a difference. I think, for example, that hate speech is more hateful the more specific it is. To call someone a n----r is not as a bad as arguing that black people have lower intelligence than whites.”
–Intention: “Was the remark intended to wound, or intended to perpetuate some social wrong? Was it malicious?”
–Conviction: “Does the statement represent the individual’s considered opinion?”

By these standards, the DP Managing Board gets a pass, right? I think Gladwell’s being reductive, which is, of course, his stock in trade: Simple, universalist answers to highly complex questions. What he doesn’t take into account is that racism isn’t solely the province of the speaker; it is shaped by context and colored by the nature of the audience. Assuming that our goal is a civil society, we have a responsibility to understand the reason why others might take harm from our actions or statements; the harm may not be intended, but if, as the DP Managing Board suggests, flaps such as this are an opportunity for advancing the dialogue around race and stereotype–well, a dialogue is by definition a two-way street. You can’t outright “reject” one party’s opinion, then call for an open debate, can you?

For future Rosie Carollas, here’s my personal set of metrics around race and humor–your mileage may vary. Quantifying what’s funny and what’s offensive is always tricky and sometimes dangerous, as one of my friends pointed out–for instance, most definitions of pornography tend to fall on “you know it when you see it,” not, uh, that I’ve ever seen it. But I submit the following as thought starters, if not rules of conduct–at the least, these are things people should consider before busting out with a potentially inflammatory statement:

<ol>
<li>If you’re using humor as a way of pushing people to think about a situation, by illuminating foibles or disconnects between and within racial groups, you should get leeway (if not a blank check). I would put a lot of Dave Chappelle’s stuff in here, especially things like his “Racial Draft” sketch and his “black Ku Klux Klan member” skit. It’s uncomfortable to watch some of it, there’re things going on that some people might take offense at, but you get the point of the parody–there’s a message beyond “look how stupid/cheap/crude/lame etc. [insert ethnic group] is! HAW!”</li>
<li>As a kind of addendum to point 1, if you are a member of the racial group you’re satirizing, you are in a better position to illuminate said foibles or disconnects–it’s at the least a more defensible position, and probably a more informed one. Arguably, it’s a position of privilege (I would say that the latter is probably true if you’re a member of an ethnic group satirizing that ethnic group in front of a private audience of fellow members of that ethnic group–the room for misinterpretation or unfortunate repurposing is narrowed). Not everyone would agree with this, but it’s a practical issue on some level, not a political one.</li>
<li>Being funny helps. Again, it’s not a blank check, but at the least, if diverse audiences find what you’re doing hilarious, at least there’s some kind of utility to your shtick, right?</li>
<li>If it’s a novel take on a topic or situation, well, again, no “get out of jail free,” but at least you can stake a claim to breaking new ground. For instance, if someone were to do a sketch about how all Asian men are sexual dynamos, capable of incredible feats of sensual prowess–hey, I haven’t seen that before. It’s a caricature, but it’s a new caricature. I personally would not be that offended.</li>
<li>Power matters. Sorry. It just does. It’s not the same thing when a white, educated, upper-class person makes fun of a nonwhite, less educated, working class person as vice versa.</li>
</ol>

By these standards, where does the DP’s “joke op-ed” stand?

On point 1., I’d give them a thumbs down. I can’t for the life of me see what the larger point of the piece was, or how it’s meant to interrogate or satirize stereotypes–I think most readers of any race would assume that the piece is if anything satirizing, you know, Asian people, and in particular, Jian Li, the Yale student who’s suing Princeton for reverse discrimination. The broken English is a big, red X, for one. This dude Jian Li got a perfect score on his SATs, and he’s going to frickin’ Yale. Now, say what you will about Yale’s quality of education, but no one’s going there who doesn’t have basic command of, like, articles and prepositions.

Point 2., also a fail. Sure, there are Asians who are part of the ed board, but that doesn’t absolve the non-Asians, and if anything, it makes you kind of wonder what Anna Huang and Chanakya Sethi (and maybe Tom Senn and Ellen Young, who knows) were thinking. This is a piece that was going out under the banner of the Princetonian, and from there, the world. It should have been read from that perspective before publication–that’s the responsibility of an editorial board. When we print this, how, objectively, will it be read and interpreted? What is our message? Is it getting across? If they wanted to satirize the Jian Li issue (and the larger notion of Asian “whiz kid” stereotypes), why not write a fake op-ed written by, say, a doped-out slacker Asian American dude who’s spent the last four years smoking pot and surfing, got straight Ds and 800 on his SATs, but still claims to have been rejected from both Princeton and La Jolla Community College because of “reverse discrimination”? (Though naturally, Yale accepted him. Rimshot!)

Point 3. and 4., two more thumbs down. The gags they use are unfunny. Old as rice. And ultimately, at least from my perspective, lame.

Point 5. Well, Jian Li is far from a poor, uneducated, unable-to-defend-himself individual, but the way the piece is written, it has a distinctly anti-immigrant note to it. The bad fake accent, the “My mom from same province as General Tso. My dad from Kung Pao province” lines, Ugh. Who knew that Adam Carolla and Rosie O’Donnell went to Princeton?

As the puppets in Avenue Q say, “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” But if you’re smart and you put a foot in it, you admit it, you apologize, you learn something, you move on–you don’t jump on a high horse and accuse others of being dense. And if you’re not smart, and apparently there’s a lot of dumb on Ivy League campuses, you do the Rosie Carolla thing, and turn a tempest in a teapot into Katrina 2.0.

Okay, enough of that…would love to hear your opinions and feedback.

See you in two,

Jeff

nbachris2788 · January 22, 2007, 9:28pm

If people want a summary of the above article (a very funny one in IMHO, I recommend that you read it thoroughly), some of my favourite points are:

1) Why is always the bad comedians who lecture audiences on having a sense of humour?

2) The Princeton article fails to introduce any kind of element that ridicules those who would take the stereotypes seriously (and there are many who probably do), and instead just throw out a bunch of tired slurs. Thus it fails as a satire, and almost qualifies as race-bashing.

3) Asians must be laughing every time they get the “I’m sorry you suck enough to be offended at our brilliant jokes” apologies from the likes of every comedic hack out there who desperately needs laughs. Remember that Simpsons episode where Krusty was invited to a comedy festival, and while everybody else was hip and hilarious, he was a total dud as he whipped out tired old Asian jokes? The point? Unfunny comedians = Asian jokes.

Anyway, it’s quite obvious that Princetonians are better off memorizing SAT words or learning to suck up to future CEOs, as opposed to trying to challenge social convention or using creative wit. Haha, I kid I kid. I’m an Ivy Leaguer myself.

bobgao · January 22, 2007, 9:29pm

hahahahah i can totally laugh my ass off for this YO MAN I’M CHINESE TOO mad respect yale is good too, don’t worry it’s ok it’s not the end of the world

lackadaisy · January 22, 2007, 9:49pm

WOW. That would be an amazing article… someone write it immediately. =)

fuzzylogic · January 23, 2007, 4:27am

^That’s just like Harold and Kumar.

TheMK99 · January 23, 2007, 1:41pm

Harold and Kumar was actually a very funny movie. I liked all the asian Investment Banking stereotypes and the Indian pre-med stereotypes.

Like the white guy who talked about giving the asian guy extra number crunching work- “Asians love that stuff! You probably made his weekend!”

It was funny for asians and whites viewing because they realized how ridiculous the stereotype was. It was good satirical humor, as people have discussed above.

k_amp_s · January 23, 2007, 6:13pm

epiphany -

It is “rationalization” when you don’t even acknowledge other factors such as the LOWER admittance rate Princeton has for Asian-Am applicants.

Amid widespread faculty concern about Princeton’s inability — or unwillingness — to attract more brilliant students, the University also faced a wave of negative publicity about alleged discrimination against Asian Americans. In 1981, Dean Wickenden had privately reported that he was “concerned about Asian Americans being admitted at the lowest rate of all minorities in spite of the fact that the academic credentials of this group are much stronger than those of the other sub-groups.” By 1985, 17 percent of all applicants to Princeton were admitted, but only 14 percent of Asian Americans. But a Princeton study that was never made public concluded that, though Asian Americans had higher academic ratings than whites in four of the five years examined, there was no bias. “One of the things working against Asian-American” applicants, said Cummings, was that they were underrepresented among groups given preference for admission, such as alumni children, athletes, and blacks. This was essentially the same argument that Harvard made a few years later, though it was careful to leave the higher admission rate for blacks (29 percent in 1987 compared to 15 percent for all Harvard applicants) out of the discussion.

<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW05-06/08-0215/features.html[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW05-06/08-0215/features.html</a>

And how do you explain the fact that other Ivies such as Columbia and Penn have a HIGHER % of Asian students than Princeton - wouldn’t they suffer from the “yield problem” in relation to Princeton?

Plus, since Asian parents are only interested in “prestige” - wouldn’t Princeton be the no.1 or 2 choice - since it has consistently been ranked ahead of Yale (alternating w/ Harvard at the top)?

<hr>

As far as Harold & Kumar - the 2 screenwriters wrote the screenplay b/c they didn’t see any Hollyood films being made with Asian-Am male characters like their friends and instead, only saw stereotypical depictions.

And when the studio pressured them to change one of the leads into a WM -they had to fight the studio to keep both leads Asian (one East, one South) since the message and whole point of the film would have been lost (stupid studio execs).

epiphany · January 23, 2007, 8:21pm

k&s,
I don’t know why you persist in putting words in my mouth, but I’m tired of the “set-up” questions, such as,

“since Asians are only interested in prestige…”

That quote was contextualized within other direct questions you asked me in particular. I never made such a statement or opinion. You do not know how to debate in a civil & rational format, and I do not appreciate that fact. I never suggested a reason for the frequent preference of Asians for Harvard vs. Princeton, when accepted to both.

I’ll make a stab at some of your concerns anyway. I have hardly made any claim to some omniscience as to the reasons for various yield factors, but it’s possible that,

–particular programs at Penn & Columbia, particular opportunities, have appealed to those Asians who have accepted offers there;
–the greater number of programs, & the greater size of the above Universities, may be a draw factor for any number of students, including & not limited to Asians. Clearly this would also apply to Harvard, including its many graduate programs.

One thing is very clear, though. I am hardly responsible for any perceived or real Asian preference for any University over Princeton. I am not an employed, alumna, or representative member of Princeton University. I do not set their policy, construct their student body, nor do I read the freshman applications received. Get off my case. Now.

ilovecalifornia · January 23, 2007, 8:50pm

OMG ITS SO TRUE

blacks have it the best right now when it comes to racist humor. NOTHING gets the nation getting PC like a low blow to the african-american community in any area (art, entertainment, music, etc)

if i were asian, i’d be furious (or should i say, more furious) about this double standard.

asians are the ones that nobody is afraid to pick on. its not right.

fabrizio · January 23, 2007, 9:59pm

I have similar feelings as ilovecalifornia.

Yes, the editors of the Princetonian apologized, but it took them two letters and they seemed very reluctant to do so.

In post 229, k&s mentioned a similar “joke” incident. There were two differences.

<ol>
<li>The joke was on Blacks.</li>
<li>The editors immediately apologized once the uproar was created. There was no lame “we’re just joking, get a sense of humor!” rebuttal before an apology.</li>
</ol>

What’s more, the editor of the Tufts publication explicitly stated “We’re sorry.” The editors of the Princetonian did apologize, but they were not so straightforward.

danzerous · January 23, 2007, 10:11pm

The excuse the Daily Princetonian used is soo… cliche.

Insert Asian stereotypical jokes here
“I’m not racist because my girlfriend is Asian!”

k_amp_s · January 24, 2007, 5:23pm

epiph - “That quote was contextualized within other direct questions you asked me in particular. I never made such a statement or opinion. You do not know how to debate in a civil & rational format, and I do not appreciate that fact. I never suggested a reason for the frequent preference of Asians for Harvard vs. Princeton, when accepted to both.”

Right - and this is coming from the person who “explained away” the lower admittance rate for Asian applicants by stating that Asian applicants, overall, simply don’t meet the “holistic” requirements, and when I pointed out the fact that a no. of studies have shown that the ECs of Asian applicants are NO different from their white counterparts - you then “explained away” those studies by asserting that Asians may not be as committed to their ECs and that schools prefer “quality over quanity.”

Thus, in light of your previous posts - it’s hardly surprising that you are now trying to “explain away” the lower % of Asians at Princeton by bringing up any ridiculous possibilities (with absolutely no basis for it whatsoever).

If size and breath of programs were factors not conducive for Asian applicants to attend Princeton - then why does a LAC like Wellesley (which is smaller and has even less of a variety of programs) have a much higher % of Asian students?

Maybe Wellesley just isn’t as interested in a student body with “holistic” interests?

But really, this attempt at an explanation is really laughable - do you really think most Asian applicants (or most applicants - period) would turn down Princeton for Penn or Columbia?

<hr>

epiph - “One thing is very clear, though. I am hardly responsible for any perceived or real Asian preference for any University over Princeton. I am not an employed, alumna, or representative member of Princeton University. I do not set their policy, construct their student body, nor do I read the freshman applications received. Get off my case. Now.”

Who said anything about you being responsible for whatever admissions biases that Princeton has?

My criticism has been of your statements which continue to “explain away” the lower admit rates for Asian applicants by stating that Asian applicants DON’T (overall) meet the “holistic” requirements as other applicants - despite evidence to the contrary.

And oh, btw, the admittance of Jewish students at Princeton dropped during the same period - so maybe Jewish applicants don’t have the “holistic” requirements or conversely, maybe schools like Harvard/Yale don’t care about holistic attributes as much as Princeton - take your pick.

epiphany · January 24, 2007, 6:08pm

"this is coming from the person who “explained away” the lower admittance rate for Asian applicants by stating that Asian applicants, overall, simply don’t meet the “holistic” requirements, and when I pointed out the fact that a no. of studies have shown that the ECs of Asian applicants are NO different from their white counterparts - you then “explained away” those studies by asserting that Asians may not be as committed to their ECs and that schools prefer “quality over quanity.”

I never ONCE directed such observations to Asians in particular. Never once. Stop misrepresenting my comments & misquoting me.

“Who said anything about you being responsible for whatever admissions biases that Princeton has?”

In your confrontational, demanding, ‘EXPLAIN IT!’ style, you have asked me over & over to explain decisions by students I have never met. Since I have never previously pretended to know the reasons for such decisions, your repeated attempts to get me to answer loaded questions (which you load, not me), amounts to an assumption that I am somehow responsible for such diversions away from Princeton. I am not.

k_amp_s · January 24, 2007, 6:32pm

I certainly am NOT misquoting you (go reread some of your posts).

Btw, it’s interesting to note that your compadre in thinking, AdOfficer acknowledges that there is a bias against Jewish applicants and that they are held to a higher standard, but totally dismisses the same for Asian applicants (despite Jews being “over”-represented at the Ivies at 4 times the rate of Asians in relation to their % of the pop.).

nbachris2788 · January 24, 2007, 7:28pm

Even if the staff’s weak excuse of “we weren’t aware it was a joke”, it still demonstrates how when it comes to Asians, there are apparently no boundaries of courtesy. People know the limits when it comes to blacks and Jews, but when it comes to Asians, they either are ignorant or don’t care (most likely the latter). Both reasons are unacceptable and must be rectified.

What angers me the most is the cowardice of these self-righteous crusaders of unPC-ness and race discussion; yeah, they’re so brave and revolutionary that they pick on the easiest targets. They probably ruin their pants at the thought of getting a national tongue-lashing from Al Sharpton.

epiphany · January 24, 2007, 8:03pm

I have read all my posts & are quite aware of what they say. I never once said or implied any of the things that you claim. Never said or implied that Asians were interested in quantity not quality, that they didn’t have a sense of commitment about e.c.'s, etc. My comments addressed those posters who believed that high scores & other quantifiable academic features are the single or even main determinants of Elite college admissions. I have even said often in all these threads pertaining to Asians and AA, that these same admissions standards apply equally to all groups, not more to one ethnic or nationality group than another. None of those comments signify that Asians as a group have less “holistic” appeal than other “groups.” However, again, even such an observation is meaningless because groups are not admitted; individuals are.

Several posters have berated admissions officers in general for daring to include “personal qualities” as an aspect to be considered. Personal qualities covers a very wide ground, and includes aspects like character, commitment, generosity, integrity, passion, sincerity, and even leadership. The last I looked, no particular ethnic or national group had a lock on those qualities. I merely support any University’s interest in such qualities, because they are important not just for that student’s contribution to the campus community, but beyond, after graduation. Others have agreed with me that Universities are quite interested in how the student will do after graduation, how that will reflect on the U., how successful he or she will be, as that will reflect well on the institution and be good “P.R.” They will be just as interested, though, in the super-student of any background who quietly pursues academics & eventually ends up contributing to some ground-breaking scientific research. A campus doesn’t want all leaders, nor all nerds, nor all artists, nor all jocks. That’s their right, and again, you should take that up with them if YOU happen to feel that “Asians as a group” are supposedly lacking in some personal qualities that compromise their admissions chances. That’s YOUR thing, not mine. Take responsibility for your own defensiveness, since no one attacked you, at least not me.

As to AdOfficer, I’m not a “compadre.” If you have a gripe with that poster, ask or debate directly with that person.

fabrizio · January 24, 2007, 8:58pm

Oh yeah.

Like I mentioned before, the editor of the Tufts publication immediately issued a direct apology (“We’re sorry”). It took two letters before the editors of the Princetonian apologized, and they did not explicitly state “We’re sorry.”

To clarify, I’m not suggesting that the editors of the Princetonian are like some of the users here who suggest that Asians should get “thicker skin.” I’m agreeing that there’s not a ‘fear factor’ with respect to poking at Asians.

nbachris2788 · January 24, 2007, 9:44pm

That’s very true, but those subjective qualities leave a lot of potential room for discrimination.

epiphany · January 24, 2007, 10:49pm

“…but those subjective qualities leave a lot of potential room for discrimination.”

Really???
Asians aren’t as possessed of character, commitment, generosity, integrity, passion, sincerity, and leadership?
That’s certainly news to me.

nbachris,
ALL subjective elements of ALL applications – college, various scholarships, not to mention jobs – are susceptible to, at the least, imperfection. In anything that is not a data point on a graph, but requiring interpretation, “discrimination” in a broad sense (not limited, btw, to “race,” nationality, or ethnicity) is possible. People have regional biases, misperceptions, may have stereotypes about jocks or artists, one gender or another, sexual orientation, etc. Admissions officers probably try to be as even-handed as possible, but the process is partly art (or “imperfect science”). While one aspect of admissions may disfavor some group, another aspect may favor a different group – equally or more so.

To me, it really sounds as if some of you want Asians not only to be guaranteed zero disadvantages (i.e., not even having racial identification considered among the highly qualified subset of applicants, to ensure a reasonable class balance), you want to go beyond that: you seem to want a guarantee of some superior advantages.

Asians should have to meet the same criteria as everyone else: that would include the above personal qualities.

fabrizio · January 25, 2007, 8:15am

epiphany,

It just occurred to me that there’s yet another double standard with respect to treating Asians as minorities.

When the SAT scores of Blacks lag behind their White and Asian peers, racial preference supporters cry “Test bias!” “Unequal opportunity!” “Question ocean!”

When it is revealed that Harvard evaluators persistently rated Asian-Americans below whites on “personal qualities,” the same group turns a blind eye. In fact, some of them go so far as to tell us to pipe down for overplaying nonexistent discrimination.

Why is that?

I do not believe that Asian applicants are weaker in character, commitment, generosity, integrity, passion, sincerity, and leadership.

However, it certainly appears as if admissions officers feel the opposite is true (i.e. Asians are weaker in those areas).

As an American, I want a guarantee that my applications will be treated equally without bias. That means that my race should play no role in the evaluations. I want it to count neither for me nor against me. Racial preference is not the only way to ensure a “class balance.”

BUT! I absolutely do NOT want any preferential treatment. I can’t make that more clear. Many parents, though not necessarily you, have accused me of having a sense of entitlement, of believing that I and my group are superior, and so forth. I don’t have a sense of entitlement (beyond life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and I definitely don’t believe that Asians are inherently better.

I absolutely agree that Asians should have to meet the same criteria as everyone else. That’s the very essence of equal treatment. Racial preferences are not equal treatment.

(*) Quotation from the article “Poison Ivy” (Economist, 21 September 2006).

Daily Princetonian Makes Fun of Stereotypical Asian Students

CONNECT WITH US