<p>
</p>
<p>Weren’t the same categories used to exclude Jews early in the 20th century? I know everything is subjective to a degree, but using vague qualities like “leadership” and “sincerity” are an easy way for a biased admissions office to abuse its power.</p>
<p>Again, Asians SHOULD meet the same criteria as everyone else.</p>
<p>But some people also want to stack the deck with respect to private college admissions to favor characteristics that would tend to benefit their group (no matter which group is being spoken of).</p>
<p>The first is a normative view…as are the ideas used to justify a heavier reliance on test scores to move the status quo towards a different paradigm–although the power structure of the majority does not change (a macro-positivist view).</p>
<p>The problem is that (in the positive view) minority groups are not treated equally by the majority or by other minority groups.</p>
<p>It’s great to have a normative ideal (i.e. equal treatment), but considerations of what is (the positive), as well as intended and unintended outcomes when instituting a change or shift in the normative (e.g. curtailing of the free press, backlash against minorities) need to be considered.</p>
<p>Being upset at how Princeton’s paper handled their humor issue is understandable. But, moving towards political correctness in a satirical work might curtail the freedom of speech, even if it is unsavory. Defending the rights of those you disagree with, I think, is the hallmark of our living Constitution.</p>
<p>Respecting rights of all others as Americans and treating people equally (normative) is a bit different than when people act on stereotypes, good or bad, which create discrimination or inequity (in the positive). The Fallacy of Composition: The whole = the parts (i.e. Micro- practices/behaviors equal Macro- practices/behaviors). Hence, as in other discussions, there is a dicotomy between an individual and group identity (whether it is economic class, geographical location, gender, ethnicity, education, political power, etc…)–which shifts depending on whether one is more of a positivist or normativist with respect to an issue.</p>
<p>Free speech and protests are both freedoms we should enjoy, although we disagree about where the equilibrium point is…</p>
<p>Just an idea. :)</p>
<p>nbachris–I am troubled by your implication that somehow the princeton admissions office is biased and I think that you very possibly don’t understand how the admissions process works. Princeton, similar to every other top school, has decided to satisfy certain institutional needs–recruited athletes, legacies, URMs, faculty children, developmental admits etc. You can disagree as to the weight these factors should be given, but many private universities have the same priorities. After that, admissions officers are looking for academic and extracurricular excellence. It is very difficult to be a true standout in either of these areas, but those that are will generally get in (for example, if Emily Hughes, in figure skating, or Daniel Radcliffe, the Harry Potter actor, were to apply to Princeton, they would probably be accepted assuming their grades met the threshhold). After those types of relatively easy choices, the admissions office is faced with a host of candidates who often have somewhat similar profiles. For example, there are numerous varsity athletes, numerous all-state violinists, numerous artists who send in portfolios etc. I can’t imagine that the ethnicity of the applicant is weighed in this process (with the exception of URMs, who are an institutional priority). The problem is that there are so many good, talented kids that choices have to be made. If the admissions office has just taken two applicants who are all-eastern violinists and intel finalists, they will not necessarily take the violinist who made all-state and is an intel semifinalist. If they have just taken three of the top debaters in the country, they will not necessarily take a strong state debater. If they have just taken 10 valedictorians with perfect boards and 5s on numerous APS, they will not necessarily take a non-valedictorian with excellent, but not perfect statistics.</p>
<p>I truly don’t believe that there is any institutional bias against Asians at Princeton. While the Prince article was offensive and ill-advised, it only represents the work of a few students who made, I believe, a big mistake. It does not represent the general view at Princeton, nor should it be linked with the admissions office.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<p>Yes, you have highlighted a problem. Minority groups are not treated equally by the majority or even by other minority groups. Witness the existence and abuse of racial preferences as evidence.</p>
<p>Racial preferences exacerbate the already unequal treatment. Hence, they should be abolished.</p>
<p>Natural experiments in California following the success of Proposition 209 showed that almost all of the fears affirmative action supporters had were misguided. The only one that did occur was reduced “under-represented” minority enrollment at Berkeley and LA. This was compensated by increased enrollment from those groups across the entire UC system.</p>
<p>Thus, the positive statement “without affirmative action, campuses will be less diverse” has shown to be utterly false.</p>
<p>The Princetonian had every right to satirize the Li Jian case. They ended up doing it in an idiotic fashion. Not only did they botch their joke, but they also screwed up their apology by taking two attempts.</p>
<p>midatlmom,</p>
<p>Why are “under-represented” minorities an institutional NEED?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t the suit filed by Jian Li, were it to proceed, sift through the information and evidence to determine if indeed there is bias in Princeton’s admission policy or vindicate thye college? Isn’t this what the Constitution is about? Or free speech? To be able to freely question and to freely seek answers?</p>
<p>Let us then support the legal procedure and trust that even if we were to disgaree with the verdict, the process will shed light on the whole controversy.</p>
<p>I have to commend kateapollo, nbachris, fabrizio, et al., for your efforts in speaking up. </p>
<p>IsleBoy, with due respect for your anti-racist stance, I think there is a false dichotomy in presenting this as a free speech issue. The tenets of free speech do not protect certain types of speech such as hate speech, libel, slander, crying “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Even in some free European nations, Holocaust denial constitutes a punishable crime. Whether this mocking derision of a particular ethnic group amount to hate speech is of course debatable, but even assuming our society should be tolerant enough towards jokes about lynching, the Holocaust, railroad slave labor, etc., isn’t it equally our right under freedom of expression to speak up and out?</p>
<p>Sure, they can freely print whatever they want, we should be free to protest.</p>
<p>Fabrizio:</p>
<p>Not at the micro-positivist level. See UCLA and UC-Berkeley. So Proposition 209 did not show what you concluded with respect to individual campuses (micro), although if you group the UC’s than your macro idea has some merit–although still debatable in the positive and normative sense. </p>
<p>So, it depends on how one defines universities (i.e. either as an individual school or as a group of schools). I would not conclude that the positive statement is false, since each school has it’s own admissions policies and can act independently when accepting or rejecting an applicant.</p>
<p>I am also somewhat perturbed by the Princetonian Tokyorevelation who posted earlier :</p>
<p>“This has little to do with the issue at hand, but I wonder why ‘Asians’ or ‘Asian-Americans’ consider themselves to be a part of a ‘race’. As far as history tell us, people from Asia, even when coming to the United States, have not been one contiguous group since, say 4000 BC. For example, would a Korean or Korean-American person be personally offended by the joke article, which is clearly mocking Chinese stereotypes? Would he or she assume a larger identity as a so-called ‘Asian’ and consider it an affront? Now I recognize that many people come from a variety of East Asian backgrounds, but I was wondering how people actually feel about being lumped into the “Asian” category. Doesn’t that just invite stereotype, even though clearly it is looked down upon in our society today? The only reason why African-Americans have to lump themselves into their category is because they have no idea where in Africa (or elsewhere, we don’t know for sure) they came from. ‘Latinos’ all speak the same language, and their cultures began at roughly around the same time. So where does that leave ‘Asians’?"</p>
<p>No one answered Tokyo’s question, but I posted a reply on Jeff Yang’s column at <a href=“http://www.racialicious.com%5B/url%5D”>www.racialicious.com</a>, but somehow the comments section is now closed. I thought this over carefully - did anyone else see a “divide and conquer” strategy at work here? The discrimination against Asians is pitched as a way to benefit other minorities, to increase diversity, etc., not to preserve the status quo and ratio of racial makeup, a ratio which benefits the white students just as much as the other minorities, at the total expense of the Asian minority. (ok, I’m going to be lazy here and omit the hyphenated “-American” for the groups I describe, but please denote as appropriate). Thus, you’d see very little sympathy from Black, Hispanic and Jewish groups for this “uniquely Asian” plight.</p>
<p>Another strategy at work here is to pit one Asian group against another, South Asian, Korean, etc. against Chinese. The editor is S. Asian, Tokyorevelation question the relevance of this “joke” to non-Chinese Asians, eg. Koreans. The reason is of course there is strength and power in numbers and in solidarity. The more groups you can peel away from the protesting core, the less powerful they will be.</p>
<p>Of course we all have differentiated identities, even down to different dialects, provinces, hometowns, etc. However, we have the <em>choice</em> to choose the particular larger or narrower identities for the specific appropriate contexts, social, economic or politiocal. In the face of racism against <em>any</em> minority group, I would cross identity boundaries and stand in solidarity with other ethnic minorities of all stripes, even if the racist came from my own group. In confronting admission discrimination, Asians/PacificIslanders should stand together because this policy is applied to <em>all</em> Asians, Jian Li is fighting our battle. What a shame it is that other minorities do not commiserate, it could be their turn someday, but on that day, they will have my support nonetheless.</p>
<p>From the Princeton incident, it seems there is this myopia even among Asians and it has been opportunistically exploited. 
Divide and conquer…</p>
<p>After reading the Prince’s apology, I don’t think their article was racist at all, especially since several Asians were themselves responsible for it. The sort of stuff that blacks come up against is often quite different. It usually consists of groups of whites, no blacks at all, dressed up in blackface, or as slaves, using slurs against blacks, and not merely parodying racism, but being outright racist in a malicious way. There is really no comparison here at all to what blacks have had to put up with.</p>
<p>But, I do understand the problem here. And were I editor of the Prince, I would not have allowed the article to see the light of day. Of course I am a lot more sensitive on race than apparently many people are, and that’s just the thing. I know I am sensitive to these issues, and that many people are not. I give the editors slack here because I realize it is entirely possible to publish things that in one context seem funny, but in another context turn out to be awful. While the authors sat around discussing the article, they may easily have enjoyed the caricature they created so much that they failed to see how it would look once it left the context of their little meeting, and found itself in context of a public newspaper page. It was a mistake-- one that they should have been called out for, and one they should have apologized for. But calling these kids “Racists” is just out of line. Using this to claim the school is racist against Asians, when Asians are just plain swamping the campus is ridiculous, and I think that is why so many Asians at Princeton are making fun of Jian Li and this whole episode. They know from their own experience that Princeton is not racist in the least – at least not against Asians.</p>
<p>Mess happens. It happens because all of life is ultimately subjective. It is for this reason that when that Kramer guy laid into those black guys, I was very reticent to get upset with him. I understood how things can get out of hand especially on race. Race ain’t yet like hair color. It influences everything. So, you get two guys heckling a comic, a comic who desperately needs success and who is probably suffering many fears, and you put black skin on the hecklers, you have a recipe for explosion. And it is all very understandable. Most people, when put under the right pressure, will go for the area in their enemy they think is weakest. Even if they aren’t particularly racist under normal circumstances, when they feel themselves drowning and unable to breathe, and they perceive their tormentors especially sensitive on race, many will strike out where the vulnerability is. They “reason” that as long as they can take the immediate heat off, they can perhaps deal with the fallout later. I am not saying this is right and that we ought not be concerned with it. We ought to be concerned because it shows how unfortunately powerful race is. But the point is, I don’t think pure racism exists even in THIS sort of case. Now, it turns out Kramer is probably a genuine racist because he has apparently made awful comments, for example against Jews, several times before, even while not under pressure. But putting this aside and looking only at the one case, I felt the circumstances were too cluttered with other influences to judge the man an outright racist.</p>
<p>In the Prince case, I don’t think we have anything AT ALL here to judge the Prince editors “Racists”. It seems apparent to me they enjoyed a caricature of their own creation and thought we would all, including Asians, enjoy it also. Of course they were wrong, and have apologized. I think they have learned from this episode. But all of this continual ragging on these kids and all this robe-tearing angst about how racist Princeton is because of this little episode is just going way overboard in my opinion.</p>
<p>Poiuyt: </p>
<p>Li can do what he wants, whether or not I think it is in poor taste. That is why I remain largely quiet with respect to making (in that particular instance) a judgement call. Likewise, although I do have an opinion as to the tastefulness of the Princeton paper’s satire issue, I would personally not advocate for curtail free speech–because it can set a precident, which can then apply to other groups, individuals, and institions in ways that would be detrimental in the positive sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is what I said. You have the right to protest, as long as others have the right to free speech. Clearly, there are a few things that cannot be protected by free speech (which the courts and other bodies have defined).</p>
<p>As for what European countries do…their legal, institutional, political, social, & economic practices do not, for the most part, fall under the constraints of the U.S. Constitution, so their behavior, values and ideas are less relevant.</p>
<p>As for lynching jokes, jokes about whites, rairoad labor, etc…if you are aware that the material is satirical, there should be an expectation of sometimes controversial material. If I go to see Ms. Cho or Jeff Foxworthy, I know what to expect. Just as I would when I go to see Rosanne Barr or Martin Lawrence.</p>
<p>The KKK adopted a section of highway, the Boy Scouts of America are hetero-centric, the Rebel flag flies in South Carolina. Have we done away with exclusionary practices in the U.S.? I’m not so sure, at least in the positive view, but I think the answer is no. Should things be equitable in the normative view? Yep.</p>
<p>Is my preference to clamp down on free speech in a satirical piece of work? No. Is my preference to curtain particular tangible and often de facto practices by minimizing the effect of organizational practices that exclude? You bet. Each person can combat a thought with a thought, while only the courts can determine what is acceptable for it’s citizens. That is, a mob mentality is still just that. I would not be so quick to jump off a bridge or onto a bandwagon, unless I was somewhat sure what the positive effect would be given a particular normative stance.</p>
<p>
Because “Question Ocean” is a system, a rather barbaric system in my view, that applies to an entire population, a system I think has not helped Asian schools, and that therefore ought not exist in America. On the other hand, Harvard is just one school. Unlike those who push “Question Ocean”, it is not trying to literally push a system that is biased against any one group’s chance for representation at its school. Even if such bias happens accidentally, it is trying to discover and then deal with it. It is trying to find ways to deal with admissions so that all groups benefit, not just Asians.</p>
<p>
Indeed. Prop 209 basically tells black children they have little chance to get into California’s best schools. This is especially true since so few blacks are even seen at Berkeley these days.</p>
<p>I’m all for slugging it out, it really shakes out a lot of repressed stuff into the light of day, Princetonian style.</p>
<p>Regardless of the particular flavoring of Li’s suit, if you revere the Constitution, you have to respect his right to file it. It is another way to bring light to a controversy that has dogged the entire Asian community as apparent in the innumerable exposes over the years. Sure, it might not settle the question, but it does set some objective criteria to go about judging what so far remains a highly subjective and emotional issue. You might not feel so strongly about the possibility of admission discrimination, but I’d wager that the vast majority of Asian-Americans do. It might affect the next batch of students, their kin, and future Asian-Americans. I’d admit that my first thought about Jian Li’s was “What a sore loser, he’s going to make Asian-Americans look bad.” and then I was shocked at myself for harboring such thoughts because if it were a African-American fighting for a place in college, I would cheer the suit on. I have the exact same prejudice about Asians myself - he got into Yale, he’s set for life, why fight? Well, it isn’t just about Jian Li the rich kid, is it? Or about face. It might make a great difference for some other Asian-Americans from a disadvantaged background. Let the courts decide, and if the verdict vindicates Princeton, I’d sleep better knowing that discrimination against AAs did not take place after all.</p>
<p>One of the problems I have with affirmative action is that in many cases, it causes more racism against the groups that are benefited, enough so that the costs outweigh the benefits.</p>
<p>
I don’t really think this is a problem with Affirmative Action. It is a problem with the hearts of those who are prone to show racism in the first place. We can have disagreements with policy without being racists.</p>
<p>IsleBoy,</p>
<p>In the third paragraph of Post 264, I pointed out that “under-represented” minority enrollment plummeted at UCLA and Berkeley following the success of Proposition 209. I followed that statement by noting that admissions from these groups has actually increased throughout the system. This is a point that affirmative action supporters seldom acknowledge or even recognize as fact.</p>
<p>At the time, citizens against the proposition claimed that without racial preferences, “under-represented” minority enrollment would drop everywhere at all campuses. Events have since rendered this claim false.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, you said that most similar articles written about black people are of a completely different nature and were meant to insult. Yet, say that the Princetonian decided that they wanted to write an article similar to this one mocking black stereotypes, regardless of whether this is common or not. It would be in the same style as this one and would have the same intentions, regardless of what the true intentions are (because we can’t possibly know).</p>
<p>1) Would you be offended? How would you react?
2) How fast do you think an apology - a straightforward one, unlike the one that was given in this case - would be issued?
3) Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, how do you think Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would react?</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>I assume you work in K-12 public education. Walk into a math or science classroom, especially an advanced-level one if possible, and after the teacher finishes a lecture and answers relevant questions, ask how many students “get it.”</p>
<p>Based on my experience, most of them should raise their hands.</p>
<p>Then, give them a hard problem on the board or overheard projector. See how many can solve it.</p>
<p>The number of students who do is a fraction of the number of students who raised their hands and a small fraction at that.</p>
<p>Doing many, many hard problems is essential for success in the areas of math and science. It even carries over to the social sciences.</p>
<p>Last year in AP US History, I did hundreds of multiple-choice questions from a variety of sources. I read my textbook, primary sources, and review books. I wrote essays from released exams and practice books. When I took the AP test, I remember reading several questions and thinking, “I’ve seen this before.” I had simply done so many that there wasn’t anything new. It’s been over a year, but I still believe that out of 80 questions, I only missed 4. I don’t recall reading any question that made me go, “Wha? Never heard of that before.”</p>
<p>The fact is that only a genius can listen to a lecture and truly understand the material (i.e. he can do that hard problem easily on the spot with no prior exposure to the course). Regular students, like myself, need practice (and lots of it). The best way to get this practice? Question ocean, hands down.</p>
<p>What’s said to him was a joke, to you, a jibe, to me a @#$%A!!#$ KKK/Nazi/Satanic manifesto!</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know whether to laugh, shake my head, or do both at the same time.</p>
<p>How does Proposition 209 tell young Black students that they have little chance of getting in to Berkeley and LA?</p>
<p>Hmm? How does it do that? I really, really want to hear your elaboration on this one.</p>
<p>An implicit assumption in your statement is “Blacks can’t ‘make it’ without racial preferences.” </p>
<p>I don’t buy that for one second. Blacks were improving their lives before racial preferences became in fashion. The gaps have decreased since the institutionalization of preferences.</p>
<p>As far as the low number of Black students at Berkeley, maybe that highlights the fact that the number of qualified Black applicants in this nation is currently low. That is a problem, and racial preferences do nothing to solve that.</p>