<p>“A Very Brief History of American Discrimination Against Asians:”</p>
<p>My head hurts after that post, but because of the quoted line, I’m assuming that you agree with me. Asians and blacks, and even some whites who came from Europe in the early 20th century (my people), all faced some forms of discrimination. The difference is that AA helps blacks and hispanics based on “past discrimination” but excludes Asians and some white groups who were also discriminated against.</p>
<p>
Well you conclude this, but I am telling you the two sentences are two separate supports for the same thing, not to be taken together. I meant them like this: The Asian schools are not as great as HYPS, and Berkeley, with nearly half its student body consisting of Asians, is not as great. Berkeley is obviously not an Asian school, since it is American, but because its population is so heavily Asian, I used it to show how its Asian composition has not elevated it above HYPS, though HYPS’s Asian population is far lower than Berkeley’s.</p>
<p>
Nope. I reject it because I know the truth.</p>
<p>
Because I was not using Berkeley as an example here. I was instead making two different statements, remarking first concerning all the Asian schools, and then making a remark regarding Berkeley, since its Asian population, unlike other American schools, is so amazingly high. The sentences are to be read as two different approaches to support one assertion.</p>
<p>
Well, I haven’t redefined anything. You are just insisting on maintaining this fantasy despite my clarification. I only clarify here because I now see how my comments could have been misconstrued. But if you wish to insist I mean what I do not mean, be my guest. I am no longer interested in convincing someone of a truth of which they insist upon remaining ignorant. </p>
<p>
The reason I mentioned it was because an Asian here threatened to call a boycott of HYPS, as if those schools would feel a brain drain, buckle under the boycott, and then abandon Affirmative Action. It was important then to show that these top schools have Asian populations far lower than Asian schools, far lower than Berkeley’s (whose Asian population approaches nearly half its student body), and yet they are better schools than Asian schools and Berkeley. The idea here is that were Asians to set up their boycott, they would suffer more than the schools they aim to harm. Those schools do not need Asians to maintain their greatness. They were great before they acquired Asians, and would continue their greatness long after the last Asian decided to leave them.</p>
<p>
I am well aware of the history of Asians here. In truth, nothing that has happened to Asians has not also happened to many other groups. Germans were also imprisoned unfairly during WWII while Asian-Americans off the mainland were not. Irishmen were also treated brutally, as were the Italians, and Poles. And the Exclusion Acts were nothing more than a denial to the Chinese and others, of the right to enter someone else’s country, and initially only for limited time periods. No civil rights were infringed here. All of this, while unfortunate, was absolutely nothing compared with being owned, having your parents, your wife, your children owned, abused, sold away-- and having their children owned and sold away for as long as your people exist in the nation. After this treatment was deemed illegal, blacks STILL suffered all the discrimination, terrorism from the Klan, from the police, from politicians, and more. They also sufferred all the the rest of the discrimmination Asians and other groups have sufferred. While being true Americans, UNLIKE the Asians under the exclusion acts, blacks suffered the Black Codes, and Poll Taxes, and many other laws designed to deny them the rights extended to everyone else in their own country.</p>
<p>There is just no issue here, no comparison to what Blacks have endured-- no nothing.</p>
<p>I mention this because a poster here wanted to dismiss the historic mistreatment of blacks by mentioning “Black Studies” programs and the Civil Rights movement of the last few decades, as if these novelties could at all make up for the awful scourge of slavery (and its evil brother, Jim Crow) to which blacks, and only blacks, have been subjected.</p>
<p>“Irishmen were also treated brutally, as were the Italians, and Poles.”</p>
<p>Yes they were. I am of Irish descent and for awhile, these groups weren’t even considered white. Their oppressors were mostly whites who had been in the country for hundreds of years. My ancestors were poor potato farmers in Ireland and had nothing to do with slavery. Yet, we are grouped with the whites who were slave owners into one racial group: white. When my father had a conversation with his black co-worker about AA (I don’t knwo why it would have come up), he said that she, the black co-worker, said that the white people should pay for what they did to the blacks. My father told her that his family was poor and Irish and didn’t come to the states until the early 20th century and thus had nothing to do with slavery. She had no answer for this because she made the false assumption that all whites were involved in slavery. Talk about making broad assumptions.</p>
<p>
Yeah. I actually don’t think today’s whites owe blacks anything. But our country certainly has caused a serious problem that it has a duty to resolve. Unlike whites and others, who came here attracted by opportunity, blacks were created here by force, and then forced to remain here against their will, so that they, as a group, had no ancestral identity, no identity period except that of “slave”. America needs to resolve this infringement of natural rights. Blacks are still feeling the sting of it. America can do this by helping to ease the sting of the past so that blacks no longer feel the claim against the country. If America continues to refuse to do this, we are all going to lose the America we have come to know. It is already happening. I tell you, a lot of things we now suffer, the skyrocketing national debt, terrorism, depression, crime, drugs, the decay of our national culture and dialog, all of it and more, is intertwined with our callousness toward those in our country we have harmed the most. We can take care of this stuff over time, so that no group senses a claim against the country.</p>
<p>I agree that blacks were, to put it bluntly, treated like s**t for a long time. However, is discriminating against whites and Asians in college admissions as AA advocates really the answer? Is making up for a past injustice with a current one really going to change things? I would answer “NO” to both questions above. </p>
<p>There should be more programs that encourage performance in the URM community instead of a program that lowers the standards for them. When Giuliani was mayor of NYC, he advocated the importance of hard work. He helped create news jobs by starting Welfare-to-work programs. People were escaping poverty as a result of their own work instead of collecting a Welfare check every month. AA is like the “Welfare check” of college admissions, a mere handout that doesn’t eradicate the problem. If there was some sort of movement to encourage URM academic performance, this would help solve the problem because like Giuliani’s successful Welfare-to-work programs, people would be helping themsleves rather than waiting around for someone to fight their battles for them.</p>
<p>Giuliani was a strong, pratical leader, which was greatly needed in NYC after the disastrous Dinkins administration. If he gets the Republican nod, he’ll have my vote in 2008.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>The original two sentences have no transition between each other. In addition, the first sentence truly does not fit in the paragraph. It’s a stretch for me to think that your use of a sentence pattern like AB, where A has nothing to do with anything before or after, actually meant A - B.</p>
<p>Harvard is not great because its student body is predominantly White. Berkeley is not great because its student body is predominantly Asian. The student body makeup has absolutely nothing to do with the school’s greatness.</p>
<p>will this thread ever die!!!</p>
<p>I declare this thread dead…soo noone post after this one please.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/01/22/news/17158.shtml[/url]”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/01/22/news/17158.shtml</a></p>
<p>They apologized long ago . . . so everyone can (a) get over it or (b) deal with it.</p>
<p>And Hepstar . . . comparing Affirmative Action to a welfare check is like saying minorities don’t have to do squat to get into selective universities–your comparison is erroneous.</p>
<p>That’s right, they DO have to squat.</p>
<p>
They have no transition because they are two separate and different statements given in support of the same assertion. I see how you are taking the sentences, but you are misconstruing them. Read them again, this time adding stress to the word Berkeley, and you will clearly see my intent. Here is how I meant it.</p>
<p>The Asians schools are still not as great as HYPS, though they have practically nothing but Asians attending them. Berkeley is not as great as HYPS, though it has a student body that is almost half Asian.</p>
<p>That is exactly as I heard the statement as I typed it.</p>
<p>
Well again, the point was to underscore my belief that there are no Asian schools, or even American schools with mainly Asian populations, that equal HYPS or actually many other schools – like Oxford and Cambridge. The point was to strike against the implication that an Asian boycott against these schools would present them with a brain drain that would end their support of Affirmative Action. Such a boycott would hurt Asians more than it would those schools.</p>
<p>
I certainly never have contended any such thing. Indeed, I have said here that without the work of blacks, schools like Harvard would never have gotten off the ground to become what we now know them to be. Too many whites would have been in the fields scratching out an existence to have ever allowed such a thing.</p>
<p>
I never even so much as implied that it did. The apparent implication of the poster who suggested the Asian boycott was that a lack of Asians would hurt the schools enough to cause them to buckle under the resulting brain drain. I am only saying that the schools they wish to boycott don’t get their greatness from Asians. It in fact comes from a variety of sources, stored up over centuries. Because of this, the schools were better than Asian schools long before Asians came to them. And they would continue their greatness even without Asians. An Asian boycott would mostly harm Asians. These schools have enough brainpower and resources (potential and actual) in whites alone to continue their greatness without Asians or without anyone else for that matter. Were Asians not to apply, qualified whites would instantly fill the spots and the only thing we might see is a small note somewhere that Asian applications declined. So this talk about an Asian boycott ought not even occur here because it is just total foolishness.</p>
<p>
All of college admissions is a vast discrimination against lots of people. The issue of it all concerns the basis of the discrimination. It is entirely valid to decide that a student’s accomplishments, in context of his life, including his race, location, economic status, and a great deal more, make him worthy to attend a certain university. That is all AA does. It gives admissions committees a wider array of tools, so that they can make better informed decisions about the students who comprise their classes.</p>
<p>
I don’t see the injustice here. It would be unjust to treat race as if it literally does not matter – though it matters everywhere and in almost all things. That would be patently dishonest.</p>
<p>
Well, a test score is not necessarily proof that standards have been lowered. Admitting a student with a higher test score while overlooking a student with higher creativity is basically a lowering of one standard while raising another. I think it is better to allow a holistic approach so that the overall class gains synergy. Otherwise, you are talking a whole lot of robotic boredom, in my view.</p>
<p>
I don’t think AA is welfare.</p>
<p>
If you decide to pay special attention to one qualified URM so that he does not get lost in the crowd, you very likely help an entire family move beyond the past – an entire lineage. As we seek more qualified URMS and help them educate themselves, they produce children who work and think like their parents. In this way, we help correct the past. It takes time, but it works as sure as the rising sun. We need the programs you advocate also. But we also ought not forsake the relative few URMs who are working very hard and showing themselves to be qualified for study at our schools.</p>
<p>
LOL. Well, you forgot the little “Paid for by Rudy Giuliani” thing they put at the ends of the political ads. But anyway, I think all this welfare-to-work stuff here is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.</p>
<p>this thread is too long
and everyone’s response is too long also
this is a flag so next time i read I know where to start :D</p>
<p>Reddune,</p>
<p>Hitlering the poster, eh? CHEAP tactic. You know, this kind of hysterical hyperbolic smear is also a Nazi propaganda ploy, warping and misrepresenting information and its contents. Actually, to be accurate, to commit collectively to a sacrifice for the common good is more, politically speaking, socialist or communist, which is the <em>opposite</em> of fascism. Some basic knowledge in Politics 101 would clear this up.</p>
<p>Further, there are <em>already</em> numerous examples of such “affirmative action” decreed by law which privileges one small group in the AMERICAN society, such as the tax system which stipulates that households below a certain income bracket NEED NOT PAY TAXES. How fascist, huh?</p>
<p>If you had even read my posts CAREFULLY, you will in fact find that I was speaking out AGAINST Asian-Americans assuming the main burden of Affirmative Action, which is like asking Asian-Americans to make up for the unpaid income taxes of the poor, instead of spreading the burden out amongst all groups <em>regardless of race</em> and according to some other appropriate color-blind criteria.</p>
<p>However, since you singled me out as the object of your hysterical allegations of fascism for supporting AA while ignoring a large number of other posters who ALSO SUPPORT Affirmative Action, eg. epiphany, IsleBoy, warbleruser, guppy, Drosselmeier, I cannot but conclude that you have a particular axe to grind with my argument, which is pro-Asian-American.</p>
<p>warblersrule86,</p>
<p>Oh WOW…Thank you! Thank you! I can’t believe you would cite a study and author who SUPPORTS my contention and is an author of several studies detailing “negative action” against Asian-Americans.</p>
<p>Obviously you didn’t read or considered the arguments I presented carefully. It <em>isn’t</em> Affirmative Action that costs the Asian-Americans dearly in college admission, it is the NEGATIVE or discrimination against Asian-Americans, making them bear the brunt of sacrifice. I hope the distinction is clear enough to understand! If not, please read the studies, again, again, and again.</p>
<p>Let’s consider the study you cited. First of all, it is limited to 3 UC law schools, so its findings might not apply elsewhere. 2nd, it in fact supports what I said, stating that after Prop. 209, APA admission hasn’t significantly improved. I absolutely agree with the findings, without AA, discrimination against Asian-Americans in admission doesn’t automatically go away, especially when there is a pro-White bias in the first place.</p>
<p>You guys need to go through your head several times regarding each of these scenarios, which aren’t contradictory:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>With AA at elite colleges, the places reserved under the program are shaved off the Asian-American bloc, while Whites/Others remain unaffected.</p></li>
<li><p>In UC law schools where AA is dismantled, Asian-American admission increased marginally, while White enrollment increased substantially.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Both support the contention that there is pro-White bias and discrimination against Asian-Americans.</p>
<p>This William Kidder article deserves a serious read, especially by Asian-Americans. They need to know where the discrimination <em>against</em> them lie the better to fight it. It isn’t about disadvantaging Whites/Others, it is about insisting on a color-blind policy <em>after</em> the AA places have been allotted:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.advancingequality.org/files/kidderarticle.pdf[/url]”>http://www.advancingequality.org/files/kidderarticle.pdf</a></p>
<p>"At some elite colleges and universities, Asian Pacific American (APA)
applicants have a lesser chance of being admitted than equally qualified
White applicants. This practice, termed</p>
<p>Again, truncated! What’s wrong???</p>
<p>"This practice, termed “negative action,” is distinct from
affirmative action policies that give a plus factor to some African American,
Latino, and American Indian applicants.2 In this critique of Espenshade and Chung’s study, I show that ignoring the distinction between negative action
against APAs and affirmative action for underrepresented minorities leads to the false conclusion that APAs would be the overwhelming beneficiaries of ending affirmative action. **In fact, at the institutions in the study, ending negative action would result in far greater admission opportunities for APAs than would ending affirmative action. **</p>
<p>We all need to come to agreement on this issue, and my proposition is this:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Make Affirmative Action more equitable and open to students regardless of color from certain types of socio-economic background. If the goal is to eliminate the cycle of poverty and to give the disadvantaged a leg up, I don’t see why a well-off person of any specific minority group should gain an advantage over a white from a poor, underprivileged background (broken home, etc.)</p></li>
<li><p>After the AA places have been allocated, ensure that the rest of the selection process is color-blind and base don merit. The college should simply select their students based on whatever “wholistic” criteria they favor <em>without</em> looking at race for the non-AA applicants. Simply shave those AA places off the bottom tier of the selected student aggregate regardless of “feelings” about whether Asians are a “special” over-represented group and therefore can be taken down a notch or two.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Poiuyt,</p>
<p>I’m not calling you a fascist, I’m calling your statement fascist. I remember writing, “The above quote is by far the most racist and insensitive sentence I have ever read at CC.” I didn’t mention you in the subsequent post except identifying who wrote the line. Also, Poiuyt, committing informal fallacies is also a cheap Nazi’s trick. If you have actually taken more courses than Poli 101 you might have learn something worth mentioning. Fascism and Communism (1st stage) are stinkingly similar in term of discrimination. Communism advocates the concentration of absolute power to the government after the initial revolution in order to manage the post-capitalism world. The Utopian society of equals is only established after the concept of property is eliminated from thought and the purification of the proletariats has been done (which no Communist states have yet give up its power). Doesn’t that sound like Fascism to you? Fascism and Communism both target specific group as their enemy: Capitalist for Commie and Barbarian (anyone who is not of the specific racial group) for Fascism. In Mein Kampf, Hitler calls for the enslavement of ethnic groups who are physically strong (i.e. Negroid) and elimination of weaker groups. So does Fascism qualify under the “to commit collectively to a sacrifice for the common good is more” clause of yours? Please learn more than the basics before lecturing other on political theories. </p>
<p>Your second paragraph is referring to Income Tax, not “TAXES,” please relearn your financial 101. Low-income citizens are required to pay sale-tax, home-tax (why do you think so many people who are on Social Security, who are also poor, must give up their home? Because they can’t pay the home-tax), and in some case: estate-tax, and every other taxes in between. The income tax system is democratically instituted (16th Amendment), but the bracket system is an unfair communistic system. I’m against it. </p>
<p>"
If you had even read my posts CAREFULLY, you will in fact find that I was speaking out AGAINST Asian-Americans assuming the main burden of Affirmative Action, which is like asking Asian-Americans to make up for the unpaid income taxes of the poor, instead of spreading the burden out amongst all groups <em>regardless of race</em> and according to some other appropriate color-blind criteria."</p>
<p>^ If that was the case, then I apologize for my hasty judgment.</p>
<p>Hey Reddune, give up the “Hitlering”, ok??? I’m not interested in debating Politics 101 with you, not worth my trouble, really. Not even remotely connected to this thread, and you brought up Hitler, not me. Just want to reiterate Godwin’s Law here:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law</a></p>
<p>Yeah, and good one trying to distort what I said, obviously when I referred to people of a certain “income bracket”, it is a reference to income taxes. Further down the post, I even explictly mentioned “unpaid income taxes of the poor”, (uh, thanks for quoting to prove my point) so my meaning was rather <em>obvious</em> wasn’t it, but it is simply irresistible for you to jump on it to score a brownie point. You see a fascist, commie or what have you round every corner of the society and the internet. Maybe you should try debating the **actual **ideas and concepts debated in the Courts, in academia, in the news, and delineated in the posts instead of dipping into Godwin’s bag of tricks, thus avoiding “hasty judgement”.</p>
<p>I’m still supportive of AA in a new form, and I <em>especially</em> support measures to ensure that even if AA were to remain in its current form, the non-AA students admitted do not face any racial bias criteria, but gaijns admission on meritocracy alone.</p>