Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > victorylee0516 > Shy Asian Girl |
|
The Quota System Asians, not whites, hurt most by race-conscious admissions Where such institutions have been banned from considering applicants’ race, the study finds, enrollment of Asian-Americans has increased while admissions of whites remained flat and or, in some cases, declined. By Peter Schmidt The long-running debate over affirmative action in college admissions just got more complicated, thanks to a new study that challenges the common assumption that whites are hurt most when colleges take applicants' race and ethnicity into account. The study, published by the University of California-Los Angeles Feb. 8 in the scholarly journal InterActions, suggests that it is mainly Asian-Americans not whites who are held to a higher standard when top colleges use affirmative action. Where such institutions have been banned from considering applicants' race, the study finds, enrollment of Asian-Americans has increased while admissions of whites remained flat or, in some cases, declined. The study, an analysis of long-term enrollment trends at several exclusive public universities, found that the Asian-American share of enrollment increased: *More than 15% at the University of Texas at Austin after a 1996 federal court ruling barred consideration of race in admissions. *More than 15% at the University of Florida after Gov. Jeb Bush persuaded the state university system's governing board to vote in 2000 to end race- and ethnicity-conscious admissions. *More than 20% at the University of California-Berkeley, more than 10% at UCLA and more than 30% at the University of California-San Diego after that state's voters passed a 1996 ballot measure barring the use of affirmative-action preferences by public colleges and other state agencies. Although David Colburn and his two co-authors consider themselves advocates of affirmative action, he acknowledged their numbers show "Asian-Americans were discriminated against under an affirmative-action system." Colburn's assessment is in keeping with other research that has suggested that Asian-Americans are regarded as overrepresented on college campuses and therefore held to higher standards to keep their numbers down. The white applicants covered by this study fared no better in the absence of affirmative action than before. In fact, the number of white admissions in some cases dropped because of increased competition from Hispanics and from Asian-Americans. This report comes as efforts are underway in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma to ban the use of affirmative action by public colleges and state agencies. Similar measures easily won approval in California, Michigan and Washington. The authors of the new study seem to be hoping that their conclusions will erode white voters' support for such measures. Their report says their findings "can hardly be satisfying" to "those who campaigned for the elimination of affirmative action in the belief that it would advantage the admission of white students." The study even predicts a white backlash against race-neutral admissions policies if Asian-Americans continue to make gains. Most leading Asian-American advocacy groups have supported affirmative action. When the U.S. Supreme Court last weighed in on the legality of colleges' use of affirmative action in admissions in two University of Michigan rulings in 2003, 28 Asian-American organizations signed a legal brief urging the court to uphold such policies given the educational benefits of diversity. (A 5-4 majority of justices agreed with such logic.) In the long term, it's unclear what impact this new study will have on the views of Asian-Americans or the views of the courts. If colleges are using race-conscious admissions policies to limit enrollments of Chinese-, Vietnamese-, Indian- and Japanese-Americans, will they be able to continue convincing the courts that their intent is the promotion of diversity? Peter Schmidt is a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education and the author of Color and Money: How Rich White Are Winning the War over College Affirmative Action. |
|||
|
Any form of artificially interfering with a selection process is discriminatory and abhorrent, no matter what the circumstances. To try to keep on track with your subject matter here, we are talking about educational institutions... and for those the selection process should be, quite simply, who has shown the greatest educational ability to date. Where there is a need to "select" from a number whose grades are similar in order to fill the few remaining places then a selection committee (or whatever) should make their decisions without reference to any external criteria such as sex, race, colour, religion, or any other prejudicial influence. In the UK there have been attempts made over the past few years to introduce more women into Parliament. Having more women in Parliament would probably be a good thing, but not if it meant a lowering of the standards of the members therein. Some constituency parties tried enforcing "all women" candidate lists on their members. This is, of course, ludicrous. If a woman is the right person to stand for election for that party in that constituency then she should get the chance, likewise if a man is best then he should get it.... by ability to perform the job required i.e. represent to the constituency as a whole. Any form of positive descrimination has the effect of lowering overall standards, and there are far too many standards being lowered these days as it is. Referring to "the Chinese experience in California when the railroad was being built" is really of no help in this matter. It is history... as is "the history of discrimination from the constitutional violation". If one starts trying to make allowances for mistakes that were made in the past then who decides how far back one should go ? Back to when the Constitution was written ? Back to the first colonisation of the American continent ? Back to Roman times ? Trying to make up for mistakes in the past is just another form of positive descrimination, and positive descrimination is the worst kind because it is "politically correct".... bull sh1t. Basically, if a kid is bright enough to go to college then let them go, but life is full of disappointments, difficulties, trials and tribulations, and one of the main reasons that standards are being lowered and more and more people cannot cope with modern life is that people who should not be put into positions (on merit) are being put there because of "positive descrimination" and a general mamby-pambying to the lowest common denominator. There is no reason to try hard any more, the system will still let you succeed. May your God go with you.
| ||
|
OH, MY GOODNESS, MY FACE SO RED. I SHOULD BE WEARING MY GLASSES WHEN READING THIS. My bad, sorry. I agree if UC Berkeley become mostly Asian then is going to break down along ethnic lines cause Asians is just like Caucasians, multiple backgrounds. But why not have the best and the brightest go to UCB? Regardless of the total composition of the University? Maybe we can get the rest of the other groups to start paying attention to the education of their children so they can compete to be the best. You have been to the Sather Gate complex before? You can see all the different tables with all the different flavors of Asians pushing all of their different agendas. VICKY Nice discussing the subject with you. Good night.
| ||
2/21/2008 7:55 pm |
You are mistaken on all accounts. Firstly, I don't support AA, I am vehemently against race-based programs. Secondly, I'm no bleeding heart liberal. You seem to resort to calling people names when you lack comprehension. It shows that you're not reading nor comprehending, which is a shame. I have voted Republican often, although I'm non-partisan. Democratic candidates since Carter scare me. What I don't want to see is UC Berkeley becoming University of China Beijing (UC Beijing), and if there is a way to prevent herd mentality among Asians, self-induced segregation, enclave creation and scaring away other Americans from applying, I'll be all ears. If Cal were to be 80% Asian, the Asian enclave would divide itself along ethnic lines, Chinese vs. Koreans vs. East Indians, etc. And then you have Asians competing with Asians along those lines. And if Cal were to be 80% Chinese, the Chinese enclave would divide itself along lines of origin of country, Taiwanese vs. Mainlanders vs. Hongkongers vs. ABCs, etc. There is no end in sight. And the rest of America will simply avoid coming to these enclaves. I SHOULD BE WEARING MY GLASSES WHEN READING THIS. My bad, sorry. I agree if UC Berkeley become mostly Asian then is going to break down along ethnic lines cause Asians is just like Caucasians, multiple backgrounds. But why not have the best and the brightest go to UCB? Regardless of the total composition of the University? Maybe we can get the rest of the other groups to start paying attention to the education of their children so they can compete to be the best. You have been to the Sather Gate complex before? You can see all the different tables with all the different flavors of Asians pushing all of their different agendas. VICKY
| ||
2/21/2008 7:48 pm |
There is always going to be isolated instances of failure, and success, within any ethnic group. Dr. Charles Drew was primarily responsible for the development of the technology for the mass collection of whole blood, and partly responsible for developing the mass production of blood plasma during World War II (and this was before Brown v. board of Education and affirmation action). George Washington Carver invented peanut butter, the sweet potato, and a number of product that helped the United States during World War I. W.E.B. DuBois DuBois completed his master's degree in the spring of 1891 at Harvard University (first Black to graduate from Harvard). His doctoral thesis, The Suppression of the African Slave Trade in America, remains the authoritative work on that subject, and is the first volume in Harvard's Historical Series. Ralph Bunche was born in Detroit Michigan. At the University of California at Los Angeles he supported himself with an athletic scholarship, which paid for his collegiate expenses, and with a janitorial job, which paid for his personal expenses. He played varsity basketball on championship teams, was active in debate and campus journalism, and was graduated in 1927, summa cum laude, valedictorian of his class, with a major in international relations. With a scholarship granted by Harvard University and a fund of a thousand dollars raised by the black community of Los Angeles, Bunche began his graduate studies in political science. He completed his master's degree in 1928 and for the next six years alternated between teaching at Howard University and working toward the doctorate at Harvard. The Rosenwald Fellowship, which he held in 1932-1933, enabled him to conduct research in Africa for a dissertation comparing French rule in Togoland and Dahomey. He completed his dissertation in 1934 with such distinction that he was awarded the Toppan Prize for outstanding research in social studies. From 1936 to 1938, on a Social Science Research Council fellowship, he did postdoctoral research in anthropology at Northwestern University, the London School of Economics, and Capetown University in South Africa. Throughout his career, Bunche has maintained strong ties with education. He chaired the Department of Political Science at Howard University from 1928 until 1950; taught at Harvard University from 1950 to 1952; served as a member of the New York City Board of Education (1958-1964), as a member of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University (1960-1965), as a member of the Board of the Institute of International Education, and as a trustee of Oberlin College, Lincoln University, and New Lincoln School. Ralph Bunche's enduring fame arises from his service to the U. S. government and to the UN. An adviser to the Department of State and to the military on Africa and colonial areas of strategic military importance during World War II, Bunche moved from his first position as an analyst in the Office of Strategic Services to the desk of acting chief of the Division of Dependent Area Affairs in the State Department. He also discharged various responsibilities in connection with international conferences of the Institute of Pacific Relations, the UN, the Internation Labor Organization, and the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission. From June of 1947 to August of 1949, Bunche worked on the most important assignment of his career - the confrontation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. He was first appointed as assistant to the UN Special Committee on Palestine, then as principal secretary of the UN Palestine Commission, which was charged with carrying out the partition approved by the UN General Assembly. In early 1948 when this plan was dropped and fighting between Arabs and Israelis became especially severe, the UN appointed Count Folke Bernadotte as mediator and Ralph Bunche as his chief aide. Four months later, on September 17, 1948, Count Bernadotte was assassinated, and Bunche was named acting UN mediator on Palestine. After eleven months of virtually ceaseless negotiating, Bunche obtained signatures on armistice agreements between Israel and the Arab States. And the list goes on.
| ||
|
Ah, so you are one of those Asian Americans who have bought into the Rainbow concept of shared experiences. Too bad because you close your eyes to the reality of discrimination against Asians in general. Hmm, did you take one of those feel good Asian American classes in college that told you all about the how it was necessary for people of color to kumbaya together? You are missing the point here. Do you want to dumb down the education system so that every one is equally stupid or would you like to educate the best so they become the brightest and will be able to discover the cure for cancer, extend your life, find answers to the universe, and transform the world we live in for the better? You're not going to get that with a quota system that says, sorry, too much yellow, need a little more black (lower the standards), some brown (standards are ok), more white (no problem), and by the way, why do we have fewer and fewer native born scientist in our universities? Is it because we need to import Chinese in the hard sciences because we've quotaed out the Asian Amerians from our universities? Do me a favor, take your bleeding heart liberalism out to east Palo Alto or to Oakland one day and see how long you will last surrounded by Blacks who hate Asians. Other then that, have a nice day. Just sharing my opinion with you. VICKY
| ||
2/21/2008 6:21 pm |
I don't think keeping up with you is a major problem.
| ||
2/21/2008 6:20 pm |
And your point? In 1973 Patrick Chavis, a minority medical school applicant to the University of California at Davis Medical School was admitted as an "affirmative-action student". A white applicant, Allan Bakke, with far superior educational achievement, was rejected for the sake of "diversity". As it turns out 29 years later (in 2002), Dr. Patrick Chavis, who was recently murdered, also turned out to be a profiteering liposuction hack that caused immense pain and suffering -- and even death -- to his minority patients. One must ask how the dubious principal of "diversity" was served by admitting Chavis in 1973 to UC Davis Medical School. Related Story: 30 years later, on June 23, 2003, the U.S.Supreme Court endorsed racial quotas in higher education. See University of Michigan case 6-23-03 Also consider the MCAT (Medical College Admissions Test) scores for the rejected white medical school applicant, Allan Bakke, in 1973 vs. other "diversity" admissions: College GPA MCAT verbal score MCAT quantitative score MCAT science score MCAT general information score Allan Bakke's 1973 scores: 3.46 96th percentile 94th percentile 97th percentile 72nd percentile Average "diversity" student's scores: 2.88 46th percentile 24th percentile 35th percentile 33rd percentile [Columnist Michelle Malkin writes]: "Dr. Patrick Chavis is dead. Will the liberal politicians and gullible media who made him a poster boy for government-imposed affirmative action shed a single tear, or will they continue to ignore what a shameful tragedy his life became? "... Chavis was murdered on the night of July 23 in Hawthorne, an economically depressed neighborhood on the southern edge of Los Angeles. Three unknown assailants shot him during an alleged robbery at a Foster's Freeze. "Seven years ago, Chavis ... was profiled lavishly by New York Times magazine writer Nicholas Lemann. Chavis, who made the cover of the magazine, was a black physician admitted to the University of California-Davis medical school under a special racial-preference quota. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court later struck down the program after a landmark challenge by white applicant Allan Bakke. "Three months later, Jane Fonda's ex-husband, left-wing California politico Tom Hayden, heaped praise on Chavis in defense of affirmative action. "[White UC Davis medical school applicant Allan] Bakke's scores were higher," Hayden wrote in an article for The Nation, "but who made the most of his medical school education? From whom did California taxpayers benefit more?" [Apparently, according to the record, below, minority-quota doctor Patrick Chavis made a HUGE difference in pain, suffering and outright profiteering.] Columnist Malkin continues: "What The New York Times never got around to reporting ... is that the "difference" Chavis made in the lives of several young black women involved gruesome pain -- and death -- as a result of botched "body sculpting" [liposuction] operations at his clinic. "An administrative law judge found Chavis guilty of gross negligence and incompetence in the treatment of three patients. Yolanda Mukhalian lost 70 percent of her blood after Chavis hid her in his home for 40 hours following a bungled liposuction; she miraculously survived. The other survivor, Valerie Lawrence, also experienced severe bleeding following the surgery; after Lawrence's sister took her to a hospital emergency room, Chavis barged in and discharged his suffering patient -- still hooked up to her IV and catheter -- and also stashed her in his home. "Tammaria Cotton bled to death and suffered full cardiac arrest after Chavis performed fly-by-night liposuction on her and then disappeared. "In 1997, the Medical Board of California suspended Chavis' license, warning of his "inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician." In a statement filed by a psychiatrist, the state demonstrated Chavis' "poor impulse control and insensitivity to patients' pain." Michelle Malkin continues: "If Allan Bakke, the white doctor [rejected by UC Davis Medical school for the sake of "diversity"], had engaged in such disgraceful behavior and met such an ignominious end, you can bet the Left would never let us forget it. "But Ted Kennedy and Tom Hayden ... had nothing to say about the poor black women who were brutally victimized by the incompetent Chavis. As for The New York Times ... They "ran nothing to amend their false portrait of an affirmative action hero, or question the legitimacy of the race-conscious social policy that had made him a doctor. A riveting, nationally newsworthy story central to the country's discussion of racial preferences somehow ended up completely falling through the cracks." Excerpted from Michelle Malkin's commentary as it appeared in the Washington Times and in Townhall.com on 8/7/02 titled: "The life and death of Patrick Chavis".
| ||
2/21/2008 6:10 pm |
I don't think keeping up with you is a major problem.
| ||
2/21/2008 6:09 pm |
And your point?
| ||
2/21/2008 5:14 pm |
First, let me take a moment and educate you on what affirmation action is all about. Where you have a constitutional violation you must have a constitutional remedy. The constitutional violation is clear -- America has a history of discrimination and segregation. Once the Supreme Court of the United States determined that there was a constitutional violation, the Court had to fashion a constitutional remedy. See, e.g. Simple Justice by Richard Kluger; The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics by Don E. Fehrenbacher; We As Freemen: Plessy v. Ferguson by Keith Weldon Medley; The Plessy Case: A Legal-Historical Interpretation by Charles A. Lofgfren, Scottsboro: A Tragedy of the American South by Dan T. Carter; Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights, and Murder in the Jazz Age by Kevin Boyle; At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America by Philip Dray; Lynching in the New South: Georgia and Virginia, 1880-1930 by W. Fitzhugh Brundage; Racism: A Short History by George M. Fredrickson. Also, review the Chinese experience in California when the railroad was being built. Now, the true theory behind affirmative action is that where you have two equally qualified individuals, one of the majority persuasion, and one from an ethnic group that has been discriminated against, race has been used as a factor to balance a history of discrimination. In the law school context,, most school were making a determination that, e.g., everyone with a GPA over 3.8 is qualified. After that determination is made, admission committees would look at other factors such as race, to balance the history of discrimination from the constitutional violation. The rationale is that certain ethnic groups have been constitutionally prevented -- for centuries -- from playing a role in certain parts of American life and some effort had to be made to fashion a constitutional remedy to address these historical constitutional violations. Allan Bakke applied to the University of California, Davis Medical School. The school had been founded 10 years earlier, in 1968, with an entering class of 50 students. The first class contained three students of Asian descent and 47 white students. Over the next two years, the Medical School designed two admissions programs: one that whites with certain criteria would be admitted through and another special program designed for minority applicants. To apply to the school, an applicant had to have a minimum GPA of 2.5. The applicant's Medical College Admissions Test score, GPA, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities and other biographical data as well as an interview were also rated by five committee members to produce a benchmark score out of 500. Minority applicants, on the other hand, went through a different admissions process. Minority applicants who checked a box stating they wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" applicants were directed to the separate admissions committee. Minority applicants did not have to meet the 2.5 GPA requirements of regular applicants. Minority applicants competed for 16 seats out of 100 among each other and were insulated from competition from the regular applicant pool. Several white applicants applied to the special program, but none received an offer of admission through the special program. Bakke applied to the school in 1973 and 1974 and was denied both times. In 1973 he had a benchmark score of 468 out of 500, but no regular applicants were admitted after him with a score below 470. Bakke, however, was not considered for four special admissions slots which had not yet been filled. Bakke wrote a letter of complaint to Dr. George H. Lowrey, the Associate Dean and Chairman of the Admissions Committee, complaining the special admissions program was not what it claimed to be (a program to help the underprivileged), but a racial and ethnic quota. Handed down on June 23, 1978, the decision of the Court was announced by Justice Lewis Powell. The court ruled 5-4 that race could be one, but only one, of numerous factors used by discriminatory boards, like those of college admissions. Powell found that quotas insulated minority applicants from competition with the regular applicants and were thus unconstitutional because they discriminated against regular applicants. This was an example of reverse discrimination. Powell however stated that universities could use race as a plus factor. He cited the Harvard College Admissions Program which had been filed as an amicus curiae as an example of a constitutionally valid affirmative action program which took into account all of an applicant's qualities including race in a "holistic review." The decision was indeed split with four justices firmly against all use of race in admissions processes, four justices for the use of race in university admissions, and Justice Powell, who was against the UC Davis Medical School quota system of admission, but found that universities were allowed to use race as a factor in admission. The nature of this split opinion created controversy over whether Powell's opinion was binding. However, in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court affirmed Powell's opinion. My position is very simple. Level playing field based on merit and not race. It's not my fault some people are too stupid to keep up with me. I worked hard to get here.
| ||
2/21/2008 5:13 pm |
Also, you might want to research the nexus between the Chinese Exclusion Laws and California. It started with race in America; however, in today's world, class issues also divide people.
| ||
2/21/2008 5:05 pm |
Race-based admissions, and their pros and cons, have been debated to death in 2002, culminating in UC Berkeley making an informed decision. The debate with regards to the Berkeley case can still be found under the intellectual discourses and opinions of four notable "subject matter experts" (SMEs) on the subject or under the title "Affirmative Action at Berkeley." It's a worthy read. Informative and civil, backed by numbers and solid arguments. IMO, I find AA to be imperfect, cumbersome, problematic and artificially imbalanced (you can call that "unfair") to enforce policy and guidelines on race-based admissions. Is there another alternative which is more elegant and fair? Not likely when humans and political sensitivities are involved. In the tech sector, engineers would easily resolve traffic contentions, limited bandwidth and tight access control with the application of Quality of Service (QoS) policies, separate queues and optimized algorithms to rate-limit annoying hogs, give priority to less annoying pigs, and load-balance sweaty swines. In the absence of a fair and executable protocol, the best way perhaps is to let merit by virtue of high school scores and SAT I&II test results arbitrate. However, that may present insurmountable challenges down the road, in the case of Berkeley, at a far future date when minor disturbances today may extrapolate to a great divide tomorrow. In other words, if UC Berkeley becomes 80% Asian due to admissions by merit, I would rather that it be called University of Fudan or Beijing than the University of California. The true American college experience is better had somewhere else other than Cal because getting a college education is not all about getting good grades and landing in a cushy job. It is also about learning to deal with other people and cultures. You are missing the point here. Do you want to dumb down the education system so that every one is equally stupid or would you like to educate the best so they become the brightest and will be able to discover the cure for cancer, extend your life, find answers to the universe, and transform the world we live in for the better? You're not going to get that with a quota system that says, sorry, too much yellow, need a little more black (lower the standards), some brown (standards are ok), more white (no problem), and by the way, why do we have fewer and fewer native born scientist in our universities? Is it because we need to import Chinese in the hard sciences because we've quotaed out the Asian Amerians from our universities? Do me a favor, take your bleeding heart liberalism out to east Palo Alto or to Oakland one day and see how long you will last surrounded by Blacks who hate Asians. Other then that, have a nice day. Just sharing my opinion with you. VICKY
| ||
2/21/2008 4:42 pm |
First, let me take a moment and educate you on what affirmation action is all about. Where you have a constitutional violation you must have a constitutional remedy. The constitutional violation is clear -- America has a history of discrimination and segregation. Once the Supreme Court of the United States determined that there was a constitutional violation, the Court had to fashion a constitutional remedy. See, e.g. Simple Justice by Richard Kluger; The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics by Don E. Fehrenbacher; We As Freemen: Plessy v. Ferguson by Keith Weldon Medley; The Plessy Case: A Legal-Historical Interpretation by Charles A. Lofgfren, Scottsboro: A Tragedy of the American South by Dan T. Carter; Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights, and Murder in the Jazz Age by Kevin Boyle; At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America by Philip Dray; Lynching in the New South: Georgia and Virginia, 1880-1930 by W. Fitzhugh Brundage; Racism: A Short History by George M. Fredrickson. Also, review the Chinese experience in California when the railroad was being built. Now, the true theory behind affirmative action is that where you have two equally qualified individuals, one of the majority persuasion, and one from an ethnic group that has been discriminated against, race has been used as a factor to balance a history of discrimination. In the law school context,, most school were making a determination that, e.g., everyone with a GPA over 3.8 is qualified. After that determination is made, admission committees would look at other factors such as race, to balance the history of discrimination from the constitutional violation. The rationale is that certain ethnic groups have been constitutionally prevented -- for centuries -- from playing a role in certain parts of American life and some effort had to be made to fashion a constitutional remedy to address these historical constitutional violations.
| ||
|
Race-based admissions, and their pros and cons, have been debated to death in 2002, culminating in UC Berkeley making an informed decision. The debate with regards to the Berkeley case can still be found under the intellectual discourses and opinions of four notable "subject matter experts" (SMEs) on the subject or under the title "Affirmative Action at Berkeley." It's a worthy read. Informative and civil, backed by numbers and solid arguments. IMO, I find AA to be imperfect, cumbersome, problematic and artificially imbalanced (you can call that "unfair") to enforce policy and guidelines on race-based admissions. Is there another alternative which is more elegant and fair? Not likely when humans and political sensitivities are involved. In the tech sector, engineers would easily resolve traffic contentions, limited bandwidth and tight access control with the application of Quality of Service (QoS) policies, separate queues and optimized algorithms to rate-limit annoying hogs, give priority to less annoying pigs, and load-balance sweaty swines. In the absence of a fair and executable protocol, the best way perhaps is to let merit by virtue of high school scores and SAT I&II test results arbitrate. However, that may present insurmountable challenges down the road, in the case of Berkeley, at a far future date when minor disturbances today may extrapolate to a great divide tomorrow. In other words, if UC Berkeley becomes 80% Asian due to admissions by merit, I would rather that it be called University of Fudan or Beijing than the University of California. The true American college experience is better had somewhere else other than Cal because getting a college education is not all about getting good grades and landing in a cushy job. It is also about learning to deal with other people and cultures.
| ||
2/21/2008 1:23 pm |
Nice to see you here again. Too many Asian leaders want to be part of the political leadership process and they are willing to sell the Asian vote the Democrats and the Blacks if they can gain a little power for themselves. I don't need to feel good about being nice to people who don't like Asians. VICKY
| ||
2/21/2008 1:21 pm |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm In Singpapore. there is not much of racial discrmination. Not that extreme. However, there is a slight growth in country discrimination. One example, we Singaporean chinese tends not to associate with China chinese even when they are in singapore. One thing for sure, culture difference causes friction between us. As Singapore working language is english, we tends to communicate in english. However, China chinese tends to interpret as we singaporean being snobs, dis regard our roots, and not accepting them. Only shanghainese tends to adapt themselves well in Singapore. Now, I can in someways understand why the blacks and the caucasians dislike of asians. "Not able to overcome a culture shock that was happening within their own country." Did i go off line or off the topic again........Hmmmm. I have received several letters from people who are probably Black calling me a racist. I'm not. I'm just expressing an opinion to express an opinion. They are free to express theirs but I'm afraid they can't write or spell or even express a coherrent though worth reading. VICKY
| ||
2/21/2008 1:18 pm |
There is a history of discrimination against Asians in America. However, I think that some Asians in America are not fully aware of this history. It's sad to say, but to some white people Asians are still "the other" [If you're white you're alright, If you're yellow you're close, if you're brown stick around, and if you're black get back). Legally the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause still applies in this area, and race is one factor that may be taken into consideration when considering applications for institutions of higher learning. You need to go to the City of Berkeley and try to deal with some of their city clerks. They can't spell, speak proper english, and they really don't have any kind of work ethic at all. After all, the city can't fire them because then Blacks would be under represented in the work force. What ever happened to job qualifications? VICKY
| ||
2/21/2008 1:14 pm |
Here is how bad it is. Before, if you are Black and want to go to Lowell, all you need is a score of 75. If you are white you need a score of 90. If you are Asian you need a score of 110. Make sense to you? Not to me. On top of that, if you claim some sort minority status other then Asian, you get a lot of bonus points also. It was the same also trying to go to CAL. Too many Asians and not enough Blacks. Oh, my goodness, guess what, they dropped the standards for the Black students, and by the way, they also gave them a lot of money. But you know what? Midway into the term a lot of these poor Black kids had already spend their scholarship money on drugs, cloths, and other junk and they were bothering us Asians demanding we loan them our books, homework, and taking our food. So we brought it up with the University, and guess what again, we were told that we were harrassing these poor disadvantages Black students and by the way, we should try to help them pass since we were so smart anyway. Never happened and I was so happy when at the end of the school year they all flunked out. Never saw them again except on Telegraph with them wearing their CAL sweatshirt and hustling Asians for money for their drug habits. Not my fault they can't keep up. Just my opinion VICKY
| ||
2/21/2008 8:04 am |
There is a history of discrimination against Asians in America. However, I think that some Asians in America are not fully aware of this history. It's sad to say, but to some white people Asians are still "the other" [If you're white you're alright, If you're yellow you're close, if you're brown stick around, and if you're black get back). Legally the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause still applies in this area, and race is one factor that may be taken into consideration when considering applications for institutions of higher learning.
| ||
2/21/2008 4:50 am |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm In Singpapore. there is not much of racial discrmination. Not that extreme. However, there is a slight growth in country discrimination. One example, we Singaporean chinese tends not to associate with China chinese even when they are in singapore. One thing for sure, culture difference causes friction between us. As Singapore working language is english, we tends to communicate in english. However, China chinese tends to interpret as we singaporean being snobs, dis regard our roots, and not accepting them. Only shanghainese tends to adapt themselves well in Singapore. Now, I can in someways understand why the blacks and the caucasians dislike of asians. "Not able to overcome a culture shock that was happening within their own country." Did i go off line or off the topic again........Hmmmm.
| ||
2/21/2008 3:31 am |
给你灌水...........哈哈
|
