I wish I weren't Asian

College Confidential Community
661

<p>
[quote]
Your reference to "White Jesus" and "Black Jesus" reminded me of The Boondocks. I'm sorry to say, I had to chuckle a bit. Jesus may have been dark-skinned, but he surely was not Afro-Asiatic. I hope you were using these terms as metaphors.

[/quote]
If he was dark-skinned, then it is odd that he is rarely if ever portrayed as such. He is always the blond-haired, blue eyed, guy (or some white brunnette) the world puts up in its churches. No one has a problem with that guy, and they put him everywhere, for “some” reason avoiding the dark-skinned Jesus as if he were The Plague. Black people, on the other hand didn’t have this sort of freedom to promote the truth, the dark-skinned guy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, like I've said before, if you don't like it when I "twist" your words, then please don't twist mine. I believe in equal treatment. I do not, however, believe in preferential treatment based on race. That would truly make me a racist.

[/quote]
If you believed in equal treatment, you would believe in the requirement, the absolute requirement, that black people be allowed to own white people for nearly four-hundred years, and as a matter of American law. That and only that is equal treatment. It is really at the heart of all of our difficulties, and will remain so until every bit of the evil it has caused as been paid for. Really, there will be no escaping this. We, as a nation, are hooked at the hip to it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I used "something for nothing" to criticize your belief that you deserve special treatment based on your race. For the n plus one-th time, you deserve equal treatment. For the n plus one-th time, you are not entitled to preferential treatment. It's as simple (or simplistic, if you prefer) as that.

[/quote]
Then if I deserve equal treatment, I should have a history wherein my ancestors or people like me have owned white ancestors for exactly the same time and exactly the same way. After all, we are talking equal treatment here. If you cannot see this, then you truly do not believe in equal treatment at all. What you wish is to force blacks to accept preferential treatment for everyone else but blacks. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's pointless to continue discussing this. We have a fundamental disagreement.

[/quote]
Indeed.</p>

662

<p>I don't feel like reading through pages and pages because usually such arguments get too involved and too heated to really work effectively, especially when people start criticizing their debating methods. However I'm just going to go simple-style on this, and tell me what you guys think and what the problems are with the following, because I am actually curious to learn more about this issue and the different takes on it:</p>

<p>I feel that to be enrolled in a top school, you need to show that you performed well within your environment and made use of the resources available to you to succeed. You need to be able to handle the workload. While someone from a place of lesser opportunity may not know as much as the rich individual from a place of higher-opportunity, the former individual could still be of very comparable intellect, and this is what the top schools want. Hard work ethic and intellect -- and I try to differentiate this against "education," that is to say, admitting one student over another because they know more.</p>

<p>If a student does not have the resources or tools at hand to develop and put their intellect to the test to show what they're made of (the standard for determining who is at a disadvantage extends far beyond race and income), then by all means I am for equalizing that notion so everyone has a more fair shot at things. I am not for, however, admitting a student over another for any one factor, standalone. I feel that if AA is doing its job correctly, then marking "African American" on your application should not inherently give some sort of boost in admissions, and marking "Asian" should not somehow degrade your chances.</p>

<p>This is simply my "ideal" way of looking at the process, but I admit I do not know much about the implications of AA with respect to admissions and education fully. Where does this fall apart?</p>

663

<p>
[quote]
This is simply my "ideal" way of looking at the process, but I admit I do not know much about the implications of AA with respect to admissions and education fully. Where does this fall apart?

[/quote]
I don't think it does fall apart. I agree with everything you've written.</p>

664

<p>I'm not Asian, but I hate racism. Asian or not, you are all too good for the people who blatantly accuse Asians of being stereotypically assiduous, yet not bright. Screw them, and do the best you can for yourselves.</p>

665

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>
[quote]

You have no evidence of this, but just state this repeatedly. Indeed, you have never seen AA even work as I have advocated because currently it is not being used in conjunction with other efforts. We all look at it as a silver bullet, an either/or solution to a problem that took half a millennium to create.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I do actually. You've called him a "shill", a "little law professor," and an assortment of other insults. His name is Dr. Richard H. Sander. Have some respect.</p>

<p>I'm surprised you get as much support as you do from Whites. You believe in eye for an eye, reparations, and a society that is forever sensitive to race, always looking at the skin and never at the character.</p>

<p>I'm still laughing at your reference to White and Black Jesus.</p>

666

<p>"Maybe when I get to your age, I'll quit and succumb to the belief that only through government intervention can Blacks be helped."</p>

<p>Who said "only"? And AA in private college admissions is not "the government." It's a policy decision of a private institution. This is one of many examples of how you do not read the content of others' responses & explanations carefully -- whether those consist of one or two sentences, or whether they require a full paragraph to explain adequately.</p>

667

<p>..and I also agree with post 662.</p>

668

<p>Aside from these tiny details, what are your general opinions of the entire situation/process, without referring to anything others have said (in order to avoid potential misinterpretation) -- simply stating the argument in carefully-selected words</p>

669

<p>
[quote]
I'm surprised you get as much support as you do from Whites.

[/quote]
I don't see all this "support" you're talking about. But sensible whites know they don't have to worry about me. I am here trying to do my part to bridge the gap and make us a single people.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You believe in eye for an eye, reparations, and a society that is forever sensitive to race, always looking at the skin and never at the character.

[/quote]
It is not a matter of believing in “eye for an eye”. It is the way of all nature, including human nature – and we all know it. I am just not lying about it.</p>

<p>Fortunately, “eye for an eye” and forgiveness are the same things, at least they are two equal weights in the set of weights on the moral scale. Currently, blacks have a legitimate claim on America’s eye. But I see quite clearly that they can be persuaded to release their claim on the eye-weight and substitute it with the forgiveness weight, thereby balancing the moral scale with the least amount of suffering. We cannot demand they do this. It must happen naturally, so that they themselves feel everything has been repaired. I don’t think AA can do this. It is just a way to protect the few kids who are already repaired enough that they look to education and American culture just as genuine Americans do. AA is no silver bullet. I still have concerns about its overall effect on black motivation. But I strongly suspect it is useful, despite what some Bush shill says.</p>

670

<p>this is a real issue, as can be seen by the 45 pages of responses.
Many Asians fit the stereotype but it is better not to stereotype. All I'm saying is that there's reasons for stereotypes. There's no denying that Black's crime rates are high.
There's no denying that many asians don't get in when they would if they weren't asian.
refering to the original post, I am really put off by you saying that you wish you weren't asian. don't disown your race like that.</p>

671

<p>Fabrizio, when they defined affirmative action in the study you're talking about, they used they same kind of biased language that you use in every one of your post. Along the lines of "Do you believe in preferring one race over another in college admissions". When people said no to that, without regarding any circumstances which justify AA, they immediately twisted those results and reported them as people disagreeing with AA. Note how the study did not say that those 53% disagreed with AA.</p>

672

<p>Fabrizio, you're racist. I don't understand why you don't support aiding the african american community to recover from the damage done throughout the past. </p>

<p>-You argue that AA only hurts african americans based on some crackpot, widely criticized study that twisted flawed data and ultimately arrived at an impossible conclusion by twisting statistics. It's IMPOSSIBLE that in the year that AA was banned, Black admissions rose as a result. period.</p>

673

<p>I'm proud of being a Chinese.</p>

674

<p>Is that right, Ms. Chanandler Bong?</p>

675

<p>Tyler09,</p>

<p>No, let's consider the Gallup poll's exact phrasing again instead of what you think it is. I copy from Dr. Nieli's survey paper, "The Changing Shape of the River," as follows:</p>

<p>
[quote]

Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a
college or university?</p>

<p>a) An applicant's racial and ethnic background should be considered to help
promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some
minority students who otherwise would not be admitted?</p>

<p>b) Applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results
in few minority students being admitted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Remember, a previous question on this poll asked whether or not the respondent favored or opposed affirmative action for racial minorities. A clear majority of all respondents expressed support. (Among whites, slightly more than half were opposed.)</p>

<p>Now, when affirmative action was defined in the university context, it turned out that choice B was how most respondents felt. An overwhelming majority of Whites, around 75%, chose B, even though almost 50% of Whites supported the nebulous phrase "affirmative action." Drosselmeier and I were likely talking about the same poll. If we in fact were, then 94% of all polled Blacks stated support for the phrase "affirmative action." Obviously, most Blacks support it. But, when it came to university admissions, 53% chose A while 47% chose B, indicating mixed views. Some thought that having more minorities was more important, and others thought that admitting the best students was more important.</p>

<p>It's very important that you understand this, Tyler. I'll repeat it for you. While 94% of polled Blacks supported "affirmative action," 47% of the same group stated that admissions should be race-blind.</p>

<p>I don't understand why you don't support aiding the african american community to recover from the damage done throughout the past.</p>

<p>You don't understand because you have, once again, misunderstood me. I indeed support disadvantaged students, whether they are White, Black, Hispanic, or Asian. I believe that they should have equal access to public education, and in general, equal treatment. I do not believe that a policy formulated by Whites seeking to prove a negative helps Blacks. I agree with Dr. Shelby Steele's recommendations for improving the performance of Black college students, namely the following:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Refuse to defer to the victim-focused black identity (without denying historical victimization) that alienates and demoralizes young people who have experienced very little racial victimization, and that weakens their connection to the principles that high performance requires.</p></li>
<li><p>Not grant the license of a preference that denies black students the competition with whites and Asians that excellence absolutely requires.</p></li>
<li><p>Not demonize the very principles - rigorous intellectual effort, skill mastery, grade and test performance - by which those who compete with black students are strengthened.</p></li>
</ol>

676

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>
[quote]
You argue that AA only hurts african americans based on some crackpot, widely criticized study that twisted flawed data and ultimately arrived at an impossible conclusion by twisting statistics. It's IMPOSSIBLE that in the year that AA was banned, Black admissions rose as a result. period.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's interesting. While I disagree with the findings of Drs. Bowen and Bok, I have the courtesy to refer to them by their titles and to at least mention their study, "The Shape of the River," by its name.</p>

<p>By contrast, both you and Drosselmeier refuse to accord Dr. Sander any semblance of respect. In addition, neither of you mentions Dr. Sander's paper, "A Systemic Analysis," by its name.</p>

<p>Dr. Sander's paper was indeed widely criticized, as expected since he went against the academic establishment's reactionary support for a failed and perverse policy. You neglect to mention, however, that he has responded to all of his critics.</p>

<p>This is the second time you've stated that it is impossible for there to be more Black students under a race-blind system. How many times must I keep telling you about what happened at the University of California, San Diego? Does the fact that following Proposition 209, more Black students at UCSD graduated with honors than before bother you so much? Is the reality of increased Black enrollment in the UC system after 1996 so uncomfortable for you? And you have to gall to continue claiming that I am a "racist," with your only evidence being that I support equal treatment for all Americans.</p>

<p>Regarding your last full sentence, I never stated that "in the year AA was banned, Black admissions rose as a result." You, like others, enjoy twisting my words before becoming angry when I "twist" yours.</p>

<p>"Following" is not the same as "in the year." "After" is not the same as "in the year." Do you understand?</p>

<p>A simple disagreement, whether or not certain Americans are entitled to special treatment, causes forty-six pages of heated, emotional discussion.</p>

<p>Tyler, I know you won't graduate from high school until 2009, but please, when that day comes, promise me you'll learn about what a straw man is.</p>

677

<p>Just as an afterthought, I don't like either of these choices:</p>

<p>a) An applicant's racial and ethnic background should be considered to help
promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some
minority students who otherwise would not be admitted?</p>

<p>b) Applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted.</p>

<p>Choice a, to me, implies some sort of disregarding of merit by saying "would not otherwise be admitted." There should be a third option that somehow combines a and b so the options don't sound so extreme. Applicants SHOULD be evaluated by merit -- but not "even if fewer minorities are admitted." And yes, background should be taken into account to promote diversity, but not by "admitting those who would not otherwise be admitted." Those choices, to me, have very specific implications that I don't wholly agree with, and drawing conclusions from questions like those seems to be misleading.</p>

678

<p>^</p>

<p>I agree. AA was meant to help poor and disenfranchised Blacks, and not just anybody who looked remotely of African descent. Somehow, I think AA has lost its way when some of its beneficiaries are Black kids who've gone to St. Grottlesex schools or wealthy African internationals. That's just racist thinking IMHO, that as long as you look diverse, you are diverse. It's judging people based on skin colour at its extreme.</p>

679

<p>
[quote]
While I disagree with the findings of Drs. Bowen and Bok, I have the courtesy to refer to them by their titles and to at least mention their study, "The Shape of the River," by its name. By contrast, both you and Drosselmeier refuse to accord Dr. Sander any semblance of respect.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course Bowen and Bok are qualified to make the case they have made. Bowen was not only President of Princeton University and therefore in perfect position to know about college admissions, he is also one of the greatest applied economists in the world. Bok was not only President of Harvard University, and therefore in perfect position to know about college admissions, but he is also one of the world’s finest scholars of public policy. Together, they made a team that is well-equipped and imminently qualified to support their particular case. That is not the case with Sander, a mere law professor at UCLA.</p>

<p>With Sander and those with whom he sided, it was the same pattern I have always seen: ignore data indicating that quite powerful reasons are at play in black underperformance at schools other than unmerited promotion, then hit Affirmative Action, then hit Affirmative Action again, then kick it. If he had initially incorporated a fuller, more complex, more accurate picture of this issue than he did, I would not have been as skeptical of him as I am. In fact I have my own doubts about Affirmative Action, and Sander could have made his case with me had only he been upright in his work and supported those doubts. But that guy was just plain unfair, and the fact he was in bed with Bush’s “U.S. Commission on Civil Rights”, the members of which were biased toward the right before their case began, caused me to suspect Sander was what he appeared to be: a shill.</p>

<p>I have seen, up close, with my own eyes, how the “Stereotype Threat” works. I have also seen what happens when you organize your life to control it as much as possible, and even when you bend it so that the stereotype ceases to be a threat, but gives the kid a boost. In this environment I have seen kids, black kids, just assume that they are supposed to be stellar, in the same way they assume they are suppose to learn how to eat and walk. I have seen it, with my own eyes, and yet Sander totally ignored it, only mentioning it in passing after the fact of blistering criticism against his work. And even his reply to critics has been thoroughly</a> debunked, not merely by law professors but by social scientists.</p>

<p>Hey, the guy has a doctorate in economics, but does not practice as a pro. He instead teaches law. So I do not claim he is an idiot, but only that he is an unqualified authority on issues of public policy and social science. I think his work proves this, and that so many social scientists and other critics assault his work for this reason. It is obvious to me Sander should stick to law, and leave the social</a> science to social scientists.</p>

680

<p>fabrizio, theres a difference between disadvantaged americans in general, (which are already helped as colleges DO seek lower class, first generation college students), and disadvantaged african americans, and you refuse to acknowledge this. And i know you'll just respond with: "Is it so bad that i support equal treatment for everybody, african americans should be treated the same in college admissions". And you'll once again ignore the fact that there is a reason why so many african americans are disadvantaged.</p>

<p>They arent being deprived of competition through AA, they still have to compete all through high school, and all through college, so i have no idea what you're talking about. I've never heard of someone going "oh, i don't have to try to get good grades, AA with just get me in". College driven black students try just as hard as college driven white students. </p>

<p>If you're going to be in complete denial about that, then just think at it this way: URMs get AA because it's basically impossible for them to have legacy admits at this point because they weren't even aloud to attend universities till 50 years ago, and even then were discriminated against. Asians aren't helped by AA because they aren't having any trouble being well represented. Theres you're equal opportunity. Deal.</p>

<p>-by the way, if you're going to bring up straw men every three seconds for the sole purpose of being arrogant and condescending, then why don't you just define it yourself?</p>