The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
    29 posters qualify.
You have 0 points. Copying this list does not send funds. Paste it on Disperse, then connect your wallet there. |
Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 4th, 2005 12:18 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies Asian Americans are required to a meet a higher standard of achievement and a higher holistic criteria than blacks, hispanics and whites, in order to be admitted to the Ivies and elite colleges. As the highest performing group. they are admitted at the lowest rates.
For the complete article click on:
The secret world of college admissions
Sunday, January 30, 2005
By PATRICIA ALEX
STAFF WRITER
Forget "The Apprentice." For real competition, check out "The Applicant" - a contest in which high-achieving Asian kids from New Jersey's moneyed suburbs jockey for the Ivy League.
Consider the case of a Chinese-American girl at Holmdel High School. Her grades and test scores were top-notch, she ran cross-country and she was an accomplished pianist. Still, her prospects seemed uncertain.
The problem: her all-too-familiar profile.
She didn't, and couldn't, stand out among her peers. She ranked in the top 20 percent in the highly competitive school where nearly a fifth of the students are Asian.
"We needed to get her away from the other Asian kids,'' said Robert Shaw, a private college consultant hired by the girl's family.
Shaw advised bold steps: The family got a place in Keyport, a blue-collar town near their home, and the girl transferred to the local high school. There she was a standout: The only Asian kid in the school, she was valedictorian for the Class of 2004.
Next came an extracurricular makeover, one a bit out of character for a Chinese-American girl, said Shaw. "We suggested some outrageous activities, like Miss Teen New Jersey,'' where she won a talent competition playing piano.
"We had to create a contrarian profile,'' Shaw said. "We put her in places where she could stand out."
The girl was accepted to Yale and to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where she is now a freshman.
Shaw helped the family play the admissions game. The ethnic, geographic and racial profiling that goes into assembling classes at the nation's top-tier colleges and universities is the worst-kept secret in American higher education.
"It's a very well-known thing but colleges don't want to talk about it,'' Shaw said. "It is certainly not a meritocracy, it's about being the right type of kid."
More than grades
With a huge pool of outstanding applicants, admissions at the top schools long ago stopped being about the numbers.
Good statistics alone are not the key to the Ivy League, said Willis J. "Lee" Stetson Jr., dean of admissions at the University of Pennsylvania. "In a really competitive pool, it's the extracurricular stuff that makes the difference."
Penn gets almost 19,000 applications for 2,400 seats a year, and the odds are no better at other top-tier schools. So how does a kid stand out in a large pool of students who have 1,500s on their SATs and 4.0 grade-point averages?
The children of alumni usually get preference, as do athletes. Admissions officers look for geographic balance as well, courting a mix of international and American students.
And, even as the nation's highest courts have ruled against racial and ethnic quotas, a de facto system remains in place as admissions officers strive for "balance" and the inclusion of so-called "underrepresented" populations, like blacks and Latinos.
"If you give me a Hispanic kid with a 1,350 (SATs), I can get that kid into every Ivy League college, or an African-American kid with 1,380 to 1,400,'' Shaw said. "But give me an upper-middle-class Caucasian or Asian with a 1,600, and I can't guarantee anything."
Recently, an Asian client of Shaw's from suburban Philadelphia got "wait-listed" at Yale despite a 1,600 SAT score and a 4.1 grade point average.
Shaw, a partner in the Long Island-based Ivy Success, honed his pragmatism while working in the admissions office at Penn. He recently changed his name from Hsueh to make it easier to pronounce, he said, but allows that a less Asian-sounding name may be an advantage when his young daughters reach college age.
A 'hidden agenda'
The schools deny quotas exist. On its Web site, Princeton University says: "We do not have a profile of the ideal applicant, nor do we map out a checklist of all the particular 'types' of students we plan to admit in a given year." Asians make up 13 percent of the Princeton enrollment.
Lauren Robinson-Brown, Princeton's director of communications, said admissions staffers consider all applications without "criteria such as ethnicity or geographic region."
But admissions counselors and parents who've been through the process say they know differently. "I'm not saying that colleges have racial quotas, but I imagine that most schools want representation of different cultural and ethnic groups,'' said Jonni Sayres, a counselor in Englewood and Teaneck.
Bev Taylor, director of the Ivy Coach on Long Island, is more blunt. "Colleges have a hidden agenda. They are not going to say this,'' she said. "They look for diversity and unless you know the culture of the school, you are not going to know what's diverse."
A bulge in the college-age population has made admission harder for everyone, said Stetson of Penn, which just filled almost half its incoming freshman class through early admission.
Although less than 4 percent of the population, Asians make up about 14 percent of the Ivy League. And the numbers are even higher for schools located in cities, where Asians generally gravitate. At Penn, Asians make up almost 23 percent of the student body, 16 percent at Harvard.
Still, because they are in such a highly competitive subgroup, they are admitted to the Ivies at a lower rate than other groups, with about one in every 15 gaining entry compared with an average of one in 10, Shaw said.
As a group, Asians score the highest on standardized tests - a testament to a cultural emphasis on scholarship - and generally have high grade-point averages.
When California eliminated racial preferences - set-asides for underrepresented groups - Asian enrollment skyrocketed in the venerable University of California system. Although Asians are 13 percent of the state's population, they make up 42 percent of students of the campus at Berkeley, 38 percent at Los Angeles and 61 percent at Irvine.
Some counselors advise Asian students to apply to top-tier schools outside urban centers, such as Duke University in North Carolina or Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where they will still be considered a minority.
"One of my biggest obligations as a counselor is to get across to the parents that they need to look at areas who will appreciate them more," said Sayres, the Teaneck counselor.
Politics of admission
The glut of A-students presents a dilemma for top-tier universities that want their classes to mirror the broader society. Such institutions are more likely to "attribute a higher degree of importance to a student's race or ethnicity," according to a soon-to-be-released report from the National Association for College Admissions Counseling.
Shaw and others say the system can work against individuals in a highly competitive pool like Asians. There are also complaints that Asians are counted as minorities by colleges but don't receive minority preferences at many top-tier schools. Others balk at an analysis that views admissions as a competition among minorities - that blacks and Latinos take what otherwise would be places occupied by Asians. They note that whites remain the majority at most selective colleges.
There is concern, as well, that almost 30 distinct groups are lumped together under the Asian rubric, from the fifth-generation Japanese-American to the entrepreneur from India to the poor Hmong farmer newly arrived stateside. Despite their variety, there is a belief that the bar is set higher for the entire ethnic group.
"The perception is that there are so many who are qualified that they have to be a little higher up on the ladder," said Lance Izumi, who studies education at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a California think tank.
Shaw and others have no doubt that the perception is a reality when it comes to admissions. They worry that the trend is creating upper-limit quotas for Asians at the best schools, such as those imposed on Jews prior to World War II when they began to break into the Ivy League after decades of overt anti-Semitism.
The politics of admissions can be bewildering and disheartening, especially for parents. "They are very disappointed because they've done everything right,'' said Sayres. "For the Asian students, especially the Korean students, they lose faith if their child doesn't get into the Ivies. And it's just not possible anymore. There are too many kids and too few places."
E-mail: alex@northjersey.com
Copyright © 2005 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2059904) |
 |
Date: February 4th, 2005 12:21 AM Author: turquoise temple gay wizard Just curious, where do you go to school? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2059940) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:26 AM Author: Alcoholic shrine Harvard best in Asia! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126626) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 3:53 PM Author: nubile lascivious marketing idea sandwich Subject: Mr. Chin is no longer going to school. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2166720) |
Date: February 4th, 2005 12:26 AM Author: Boyish Set Read the thread, "Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No"
Click on:
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2059990) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 12:27 AM Author: fluffy arousing background story parlor Bergen Record! Bergen Record! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2059999) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 12:41 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?
Jay Mathews' first article on Asian American limiting quotas at highly selective colleges in the Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2004, click on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26499-2004Oct12?language=printer
washingtonpost.com
Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?
By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 12, 2004; 3:47 PM
One of the best parts of writing an online column is the conversations that grow out of answering questions from readers. What are at first quick exchanges sometimes turn into long dialogues, from which I learn much from people that I will probably never meet in person.
One of the most interesting and persistent of my online interlocutors is Ed Chin, a physician who lives in northern New Jersey. Chin and I are about the same age, but have different backgrounds. He is the child of non-English-speaking Chinese immigrant parents and grew up in a low-income neighborhood of New York City. I was raised in a relatively prosperous suburb of San Francisco by parents who spoke only English, as have most of our ancestors going back several generations to Ireland and Scotland. Chin attended a very competitive New York City magnet school, while I went to an average suburban high school. We both went to Ivy League colleges, but he enrolled in medical school while I escaped to the newspaper business.
Our Internet conversations have all been on one topic, how affirmation action in college admissions has hurt students of Asian descent. Chin has studied this subject with an energy and passion that is rare even among the many energetic and passionate people who write me. He has been asking me for years to address this topic. When my occasional swipes at it have not satisfied him, he has asked for more. He has suggested more than once that The Post and I are too politically correct and afraid of the heat that this issue generates.
Hoping to get him off my back, I told Chin I would broach the topic again only if he let me write about him and his views. I did not know of anyone else who argued the case as well as he did, I said, so he had to help me. He values his privacy, and resisted my offer for more than a year, but has now given me permission to publish the Chin doctrine. Here it is, as taken from his e-mails with his preferences on capitalization and punctuation preserved:
One of Chin's favorite examples of the Asian success at overcoming poverty is Princeton physicist Daniel C. Tsui, who won a Nobel Prize in 1998. He was born to a peasant family in a remote village in Henan province in central China, attended school in Hong Kong and then got a college scholarship to Augustana College in Rock Island, Ill., leading to his research at the University of Chicago, Bell Laboratories and Princeton.
There was no affirmative action admission for Tsui, Chin said. "He credits his accomplishments to his Chinese parents' value placed on education, despite the fact that they were illiterate Chinese peasants themselves. These values are stressed by the philosopher, Confucius, in his Analects. That's the main ingredient for his success and his endless striving for academic excellence and his love of knowledge."
Chin quotes with approval a book, "Beyond the Classroom," by Laurence Steinberg, B. Bradford Brown and Sanford M. Dornbusch, which says "of all the demographic factors we studied in relation to school performance, ethnicity was the most important. . . . In terms of school achievement, it is more advantageous to be Asian than to be wealthy, to have non-divorced parents, or to have a mother who is able to stay at home full time."
And yet the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action preserved the system at most selective private schools in which Asian American students with very high tests scores are passed over in favor of African American and Hispanic students with lower scores because the schools want significant numbers of all ethnicities on campus. Supporters of such policies say a diverse student body helps everyone learn to live in the real world, and there are plenty of other fine colleges that take students, Asian American or otherwise, whom they reject.
Whenever I raised this point, Chin would accuse me, rightly, of shrugging off the American commitment to fair play for individuals. He cited comments made by Abigail Thernstrom, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Massachusetts state school board member. "I think these racial preferences are very pernicious," she said in an interview on a PBS Web site after voters banned the use of affirmative action based on race in University of California admissions. "I don't think they do black students much good. I think they're poisonous in terms of race relations. And I do not think they are fair to the Asian student, for instance, who has worked very, very hard and is kept out of a Berkeley because a student with a slightly different skin color has gotten in as a consequence of racial identity."
Chin said "Chinese and ALL Asian Americans are PENALIZED for their values on academic excellence by being required to have a HIGHER level of achievement, academic and non-academic, than any other demographic group, especially Whites, in order to be admitted to Harvard, the Ivies and the other Elites in this zero-sum game called admissions based on racial preferences."
This may not be intended as a quota system, but Chin says it sure looks like one. He notes that in the 1980s some colleges, particularly Stanford and Brown, looked hard at their admissions decisions and discovered they were turning down many Asian American applicants while accepting white applicants with virtually the same characteristics. The Brown report admitted to "cultural bias and stereotypes," like the oft-heard canard that Asian American students have 1600 SAT scores and play the violin, but don't do sports.
Chin said if he had the power to change the admission policies of schools that discriminate in this way, he would let them continue to give preference to athletes, musicians, alumni children and any other groups the college wished to favor. And he would admit lower-scoring students whose parents, like his, did not have much money. But he would abolish all preferences based on race and ethnicity.
He noted the recent estimate by Harvard humanities professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. that two thirds of blacks at Harvard were not descendants of American slaves, but the middle class children of relatively recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. "Why should they deserve admission with lowered standards (relatively speaking) based solely on the color of their skin over a high achieving Asian American living in a Chinatown ghetto or a Black ghetto (many Asians live in Black and Latino ghettos) or a poor white from the slums of NYC?" Chin said.
The solution to the problem of lower average achievement among African Americans and Hispanics is not "the Band-Aid approach of race-based affirmative action," Chin said. "It is solved by improving the K-12 schools for the lower economic classes which are disproportionately Black and Latino."
Chin always ends his e-mails to me with the words "comments please" or "any comments?" So I am obliged to respond.
I had the good fortune to live and work in China for four years, and have spent half of my life studying Chinese culture. I think it is one of the greatest accomplishments of the human race, with its emphasis on learning, family, creativity and hard work. It is a thrill for me to see what people raised in that culture have achieved in this country, free of the fear and oppression that China is still struggling to rid itself of.
I am convinced that one reason why Chin's well-reasoned complaints have not led to massive demonstrations and legislative reform is that the students of Asian descent who are rejected by the Ivies get educations just as good in other colleges. College admissions cannot be fair for anyone when, as happens at some schools, there are ten applicants for every place in the freshman class. The test score differences that Chin emphasizes are only one measure of quality, and although they predict college grades fairly well, they don't have that much to do with success in life.
But there is one part of his argument, a reference to a sad era in American history, that is hard to ignore. Many selective colleges before World War II had quotas on Jews. They turned down many brilliant applicants in favor of non-Jewish prep school students with lesser records. They didn't call this striving for diversity, but it was a perverse form of affirmative action, and it left a bitter taste for decades.
Chin calculates that with those quotas gone, about a third of Harvard undergraduates are Jews, who make up about 3 percent of the U.S. population. About 17 percent of Harvard undergraduates are Asians, who make up about 4 percent of the population. Since the percentage of Asian Americans at schools of comparable quality that do not practice affirmative action are much higher -- 40 percent at Berkeley, 50 percent at selective New York high schools such as Stuyvesant -- Chin says the Asian American percentage at Harvard and other Ivies would go up significantly if the rules were changed.
I am not so sure. All of us, including admissions committee members, are human. We have plenty of other ill-considered biases that have not been rooted out and could affect these numbers.
But however that works out, Chin feels it is only right and fair and better serves the cause of vibrant and interesting campuses if admissions officers stopped giving preferences based on race, and instead tried to admit more young people whose parents are not affluent and did not go to college, people less like me and more like Daniel C. Tsui.
© 2004 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060114) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 10:44 AM Author: grizzly concupiscible piazza hissy fit Subject: This is curious... "Chin said if he had the power to change the admission policies of schools that discriminate in this way, he would LET THEM CONTINUE TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO ATHLETES, MUSICIANS, ALUMNI CHILDREAN AND ANY OTHER GROUPS THE COLLEGE WISHED TO FAVOR. And he would admit lower-scoring students whose parents, like his, did not have much money. But he would abolish all preferences based on race and ethnicity."
How is it ok to justify preference based on being the child of a (read: RICH) alumni but "preferences based on race and ethnicity" should be abolished. Seems reasonable that if he was really against "preference" he would be against all "preferences." (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2061139) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:35 PM Author: Boyish Set I do actually agree with you ideally, but not necessarily.
The Ivies, would have to change or abolish race based AA, but not all of AA, such as economic AA or even legacy AA, or athletic AA. The other forms of AA TRANSCEND race, and race-based AA violates the 14th Amendment of equal access based on race, color, creed, and religion. A black can be a legacy, an athlete, RICH, etc.
The blacks in the Ivies also are affluent, many of them, legacies, and athletes who ALSO RECEIVED THE RACE PREFERENCE, in a addition to the other preferences.
Why should a black legacy, athlete, or a child of rich and affluent college educated parents also receive a race preference, admitted with lowered standards soley because of the color of his/her skin??
That's LUDICROUS AND ABSURB!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063730) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:16 AM Author: aquamarine multi-colored jew halford it's legit. it's not new either.
a certain ivy used to have a jew cap that was a fixed percentage.
columbia and certain ivies have asian caps. they're more fucked by AA than any other group. and no i'm not asian, so it's not sour grapes. these schools are loathe to release SAT scores by race though, so i can't provide much more than anecdotal data. certain engineering schools are so heavily asian they practically have AA for caucasians.
the asian stuy kids get extra fucked because the school ranks or at least did a few years ago. any elite HS with any sense doesn't rank.
once some of these colleges get sued they're toast. i'm utterly certain they're using quotas. look how similar the ethnic demographic is at ALL the ivy league schools. it screams quotas. you think 13% African-american at every ivy is a coincidence?
old habits die hard. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060330) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:21 AM Author: Boyish Set Read this thread for some facts given by "hero"
How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black racism (IGNORE THE TITLE)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060354) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 2:17 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Mr. Stetson, Admiss. Dean,UPenn, said- "Asians are the new Jews" Mr. Crowley, you hit the nail on the head, by saying the following:
[it's legit. it's not new either.
a certain ivy used to have a jew cap that was a fixed percentage.
columbia and certain ivies have asian caps. they're more fucked by AA than any other group. and no i'm not asian, so it's not sour grapes. these schools are loathe to release SAT scores by race though, so i can't provide much more than anecdotal data. certain engineering schools are so heavily asian they practically have AA for caucasians.
the asian stuy kids get extra fucked because the school ranks or at least did a few years ago. any elite HS with any sense doesn't rank.
once some of these colleges get sued they're toast. i'm utterly certain they're using quotas. look how similar the ethnic demographic is at ALL the ivy league schools. it screams quotas. you think 13% African-american at every ivy is a coincidence?
old habits die hard.]
The school you referred to with a SPECIFIED % cap on Jews was Yale, although all the Ivies had quotas at one time or another. Yale was the last Ivy to abolish the Jewish quota when R. Inslee Clark, became Dean of Admissions at Yale, under President Kingman Brewster in the 1960s, despite the complaints from the Yale Corporation, which included William F. Buckley, Jr.
"For Jews at Yale, a struggle to be accepted," 4/4/01 Yale Daily News
BY ELYSSA FOLK, YDN Staff Reporter
No one knows exactly how many Jewish students will be admitted to Yale this year -- because the days of mandatory quotas on Jewish students admitted to Yale are over.
But for the majority of Yale's history, the number of Jews enrolled was a very important figure. Administrators, faculty and alumni wanted to preserve the preparatory-school, Christian student tradition at Yale. Through unofficial quotas, Yale administrators kept the Jewish student population to a minimum.
It was not until the 1960s, under the leadership of Dean of Admissions R. Inslee Clark, that the quota was lifted, and the student body was drawn from wider sources such as public schools and urban areas.
And after centuries of being marginalized and excluded from social organizations, the Jewish presence on campus was finally accepted.
Early years
The first Jewish student to attend Yale came to the University more than 100 years after the school's establishment in 1701.
Moses Simon holds the distinction of being the first Jewish Yale student, followed 17 years later by Judah Benjamin, who never graduated because his father could not afford the tuition.
Benjamin's departure from Yale is symbolic of the problems of the student body. Admission was largely given to preparatory school students from wealthy families. But Jews were rarely among that group.
By the 1890s, strong feelings of anti-Semitism pervaded the campus and were reflected in the denial of Jews to any of the fraternities and secret societies.
In Dan Oren's book, "Joining the Club -- A History of Jews and Yale," Oren writes that the members of Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity put on an anti-Semitic play as part of their initiation process for the pledges.
Ironically, although Yale administrators sought to protect the student body from Jewish infiltration, the city of New Haven had a strong working-class Jewish community had that settled in the city in the 19th century.
Limitation of numbers
Admissions was a sticky subject for Yale at the turn of the 20th century. Latin proficiency was a requirement for admission, although this would not jibe well with the nation's public school curriculum.
Complaints from public school parents resulted in fairer admissions to the University during the early 1920s, and Jews seized upon this openness to attend Yale, applying in droves. But fear mounted quickly among conservative Yale alumni that Yale might turn into Columbia University, where about half of the students were Jewish at this time.
The Jewish students, though few in number, thrived academically. In the 1920s their grades were higher on average than non-Jews, and they received more academic awards. This bothered Yale administrators tremendously, according to Oren's book.
By 1923, the University had decided to limit the number of Jews entering Yale, but not overtly. By declaring a post-World War I housing shortage, administrators could tighten the reigns on admissions without having to publicly deny Jews acceptance.
"It was clearly a veiled attempt to limit the number of Jews at Yale," Oren said. "I was particularly struck by a University committed to light and truth having a secret policy."
Those Jews that were accepted in to Yale still faced discrimination from social clubs and were forced to live together.
Judaism goes underground
The Hillel foundation, an organization centered on Jewish life, came to Yale in 1941.
But until the 1990s, the Hillel was housed underground in the basements of various buildings on Old Campus.
"If you came to the Yale campus and asked if there were Jews here, you'd have no above ground sign that there were," said James Ponet '68, now a rabbi at the Slifka Center.
But it wasn't only the physical structures that were underground. Many Jews tried to hide their identities to gain acceptance to extracurricular organizations.
Daniel Rose '51 said he remembers trying to solicit money for the United Jewish Appeal from the Jewish students at Yale -- he had gotten a list of all the Jewish students from the admissions office -- and being turned down because the students were denying being Jewish.
"I am not of that persuasion. My parents are, but I am not," Rose said was a typical response from the students he called.
But it wasn't the chilly response he received that disturbed Rose the most. Rather it was the list of Jewish students that the admissions office compiled.
"My recollection is that there were 1,100 students in my class, and there were exactly 110 names on that list," Rose said. He said this list convinced him how precise the quota system was.
The Jewish presence was also missing from the academic curriculum.
"The role of the Jew in western civilization was not a factor to be studied," Ponet said. "I remember studying the Crusades, and there was zero mention of Jews."
The days of R. Inslee Clark
After World War II, there was a rising sentiment at Yale that there should be a shift in admissions criteria to emphasize intellectual capacity rather than social status. Oren said the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. and the launch of Sputnik spurred this change.
"Americans were shocked that our educational system was not up to snuff," Oren said.
University administrators convoked the Doob committee, a faculty group that was to review Yale's housing policy. But psychology professor Leonard Doob, who served as chairman of the committee, took his mandate one step further -- to explore the fairness of the admissions policy.
But Yale's doors did not truly open until the leadership of R. Inslee Clark '57, the public high school graduate who became dean of admissions under President Kingman Brewster. Clark increased the admissions staff, recruited public school students and urged Yale's peer institutions to end preferential treatment for prep school males. Clark decided that the University had favored too many other factors rather than scholarship to admit students.
The influx of Jewish students that followed these new policies was not received well by everyone. Many alumni exaggerated the numbers, claiming that Jews were in the majority.
In 1985, President A. Bartlett Giammati did away with the formal records that the admissions office used to keep track of Jews.
From underground to Wall Street
Kenneth Davis '69 knows how different it was to be Jewish in the 1960s than today. He need only look at the experiences of his children, Daniel Davis '99 and Jordanna Davis '03.
"When my children are there, being Jewish is hardly a unique status," Davis said. "It was unusual when I came to Yale to have a Jewish roommate. It's so different [now] it brings tears to my eyes."
Today, Jews at Yale are not just more visible in number. The Slifka Center for Jewish Life, built in 1995, is the first building of its kind at Yale, a structure providing kosher food for students as well as a place to have many cultural events.
"I thought, and still do, that religious beliefs and practices should not be put on the shelf when students enroll as freshmen," said Alan Slifka '51, the Slifka's Center major benefactor. "I believe that spirit and matter belong on a university campus."
Copyright © 2001 Yale Daily News. All rights reserved.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060662) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 10:27 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: "Today's Jews" in admissions,are the Asian Americans In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" , by Bill Paul, published by Addison Wesley, 1995, on pages 201 and 202, the Admissions Dean of UPenn, Mr. Lee Stetson, stated that Asian Americans are "today's Jews" in admissions, inferring that Asian Ams are discrimnated against in the same manner the Jews were with exclusionary or limiting quotas or caps on their numbers. With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews" in admission and be subjected to caps and racial quotas against them. This is immoral,
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2061097) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:28 AM Author: Amethyst Nudist Legend ding ding ding we have a new troll!
i think Hero goes to UC Irvine. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060398) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:29 AM Author: light big goyim associate University of Chinese Immigrants
Right where he belongs. Talk about "diversity" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060401) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:32 AM Author: Boyish Set Also IGNORE ltorivia485 (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060421) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:41 AM Author: Boyish Set >> University of Chinese Immigrants...Right where he belongs. Talk about "diversity" <<
Typical racist remark. Especially when stereotypying STELLAR ASIAN AMERICAN APPLICANTS to the Ivies as "Chinese immigrants".
You simply do not know WTF you are talking about.
In fact, the stellar Asian Americans, by en large, are not immigrants at all, but they are American born or native-born Americans, who are well aculturated and most talented, have the highest SAT scores and the highest GPAs, spectacular ECs, national and international awards in the arts and math/sciences, and meet the highest holistic criteria for admissions to the elite schools, yet they have the lowest admissions rates.
Smells like a racist anti- Asian American quota.
Racial Diversity is a synomynous with RACIAL QUOTA. This is a de facto racial quota. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060470) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:47 AM Author: Amethyst Nudist Legend omg chill out.
you want me to out you? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060504) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 9:01 PM Author: Snowy electric heaven philosopher-king (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2065514) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 2:46 AM Author: Boyish Set Jay Mathews continues:
[He notes that in the 1980s some colleges, particularly Stanford and Brown, looked hard at their admissions decisions and discovered they were turning down many Asian American applicants while accepting white applicants with virtually the same characteristics. The Brown report admitted to "cultural bias and stereotypes," like the oft-heard canard that Asian American students have 1600 SAT scores and play the violin, but don't do sports.] (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060706) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 10:23 AM Author: Boyish Set torivia485 said, [Talk about "diversity"].
Diversity transcends race. True diversity is not defined by race.
The adcoms admit INDIVIDUALS into their schools, and should evaluate each applicant as an INDIVIDUAL, not by generalizing, stereotyping, or racial profiling the individual according to race, ethnic group, religion and creed. There is absolutely no place for this in admissions. This is immoral, unjust and unconstitutional. This makes for biases and discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions to the Ivies and the elite colleges, simply because they are overrepresented at about 15% of the Ivies and some of the elite colleges, on the average.This percentage for Asian Ams is capped, limiting their numbers by a de facto quota against Asian Ams.
Admissions should be race and ethnic group blind. The adcoms should not have to know the race or ethnic group of the applicant. They should not ask the applicant about his race. Even if adcoms knew the race of the applicant, it should play no role or factor in admissions.
The adcoms do not ask Jewish applicants if they are Jewish. They do not know and they don't want to know. The adcoms used to know, during the pre WW II period to the 1960s, when they used discrimnatory quotas against stellar Jewish applicants, excluding them from the Ivies. These anti-Jewish quotas have been abolished, and in their place are the anti-Asian American quotas against stellar Asian applicants. Jews are over 30% of Harvard and about 33% of UPenn today. Jews are only 2 and 1/2 % of the American population. I have no problems with this. Asian Americans are 4% of the population, but their numbers are capped at about 15% in the Ivies and elites by a de facto racial quota against stellar Asian Ams. I have a BIG PROBLEM with this. If it were not for the anti-Asian Am quotas, the percentage of Asian Ams would be much higher than their ppresent 15% in the Ivies and the elite colleges. Asian Americans are over 40% at UC Berkeley and UCLA and even 20% of U.of Texas-Austin, where they are less than 3% of the Texas population because racial quotas were abolished at these 3 schools.
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" , by Bill Paul, published by Addison Wesley, 1995, on pages 201 and 202, the Admissions Dean of UPenn, Mr. Lee Stetson, stated that Asian Americans are "today's Jews" in admissions, inferring that Asian Ams are discrimnated against in the same manner the Jews were with exclusionary or limiting quotas or caps on their numbers. With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews" in admission and be subjected to caps and racial quotas against them. This is immoral,
Diversity transcends race. True diversity is not defined by race.
The adcoms admit INDIVIDUALS into their schools, and should evaluate each applicant as an INDIVIDUAL, not by generalizing, stereotyping, or racial profiling the individual according to race, ethnic group, religion and creed. There is absolutely no place for this in admissions. This is immoral, unjust and unconstitutional. This makes for biases and discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions to the Ivies and the elite colleges, simply because they are overrepresented at about 15% of the Ivies and some of the elite colleges, on the average.This percentage for Asian Ams is capped, limiting their numbers by a de facto quota against Asian Ams.
Admissions should be race and ethnic group blind. The adcoms should not have to know the race or ethnic group of the applicant. They should not ask the applicant about his race. Even if adcoms knew the race of the applicant, it should play no role or factor in admissions.
The adcoms do not ask Jewish applicants if they are Jewish. They do not know and they don't want to know. The adcoms used to know, during the pre WW II period to the 1960s, when they used discrimnatory quotas against stellar Jewish applicants, excluding them from the Ivies. These anti-Jewish quotas have been abolished, and in their place are the anti-Asian American quotas against stellar Asian applicants. Jews are over 30% of Harvard and about 33% of UPenn today. Jews are only 2 and 1/2 % of the American population. I have no problems with this. Asian Americans are 4% of the population, but their numbers are capped at about 15% in the Ivies and elites by a de facto racial quota against stellar Asian Ams. I have a BIG PROBLEM with this. If it were not for the anti-Asian Am quotas, the percentage of Asian Ams would be much higher than their ppresent 15% in the Ivies and the elite colleges. Asian Americans are over 40% at UC Berkeley and UCLA and even 20% of U.of Texas-Austin, where they are less than 3% of the Texas population because racial quotas were abolished at these 3 schools.
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" , by Bill Paul, published by Addison Wesley, 1995, on pages 201 and 202, the Admissions Dean of UPenn, Mr. Lee Stetson, stated that Asian Americans are "today's Jews" in admissions, inferring that Asian Ams are discrimnated against in the same manner the Jews were with exclusionary or limiting quotas or caps on their numbers. With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews" in admission and be subjected to caps and racial quotas against them. This is immoral, (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2061082) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:54 AM Author: Boyish Set 2/22/01 Wall Street Journal "Colleges and Quotas," "The Center for Equal Opportunity's study of 47 public colleges and universities around the country shows that the vast majority of schools use racial double standards in admissions: a higher one for whites and Asians, and a lower one for blacks, and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics. More selective schools rely on preferences to a greater degree, but even second- and third-tier schools discriminate on the basis of race. The study's authors, Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, conclude that `racial preferences play a far more important role in admissions than has been previously acknowledged.' Nor are these preferences minor, for example giving minority students the benefit of the doubt when their grades or test scores fall slightly below those of whites." "At the University of California, Berkeley, for example, median SAT scores varied by more than 300 points between successful white and black applicants, and grade point averages for the two groups differed by more than half a point. While most schools showed somewhat smaller differences, few universities in the study showed no preference for black or Hispanic students over whites or Asians." (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060544) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 1:57 AM Author: Boyish Set The percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060556) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 2:06 AM Author: Amethyst Nudist Legend you want me to fucking out you? post your real name, picture etc etc. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060601) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 3:11 AM Author: Diverse bawdyhouse circlehead Dude, stfu. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060729) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 8:54 AM Author: Boyish Set Ragmus said, >> you want me to fucking out you? post your real name, picture etc etc. <<
Ragnus, the truth is "fucking out you". (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060855) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 2:07 AM Author: stirring impressive personal credit line guess what? nobody cares. do you know who got into harvard from my school the year i graduated? a chinese girl. and this was in Canada where nobody even knows where Harvard is... (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060614) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 2:26 AM Author: Boyish Set Hey, nitwit, we are talking about ASIAN AMERICANS, not Canadians, or Canadians of Chinese descent. Canadians, white, black or yellow, are classified as International Students or Foreign Students.
Who cares? I don't care about foreign students. They have their own quotas. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060677) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 7:59 AM Author: obsidian supple home azn I'm not convinced that which college you attend is going to cause different lifetime earning potential/relative wealth in society so I am not particularly concerned about this.
But yes, in general to have a system that isn't strictly academics in some sense is not fair (I'd like to get rid of bullshit extracurricular or stupid ass essay requirements - I hated those student government douches), but do we want to be like China where 1 test determines everything? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060830) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 8:32 AM Author: Boyish Set >> I'm not convinced that which college you attend is going to cause different lifetime earning potential/relative wealth in society so I am not particularly concerned about this. <<
If you are unconcerned, and if you are academically deficient and academically less unprepared, then YOU ARE THE ONE who should go to the TTT, the less selective and competitive schools, or the other 3500 colleges in the country with the lower standards of admission, without using race preferences, and not the stellar Asian American applicant who was rejected by these most selective schools.. There is nothing wrong with this. 98% of Americans who received colleges degrees, regardless of their race and ethnicity, attended these less selective schools. There is nothing wrong with this. Academically less prepared whites and Asian Americans attended these less selective colleges, and so should the academically less prepared or deficient blacks.
>> But yes, in general to have a system that isn't strictly academics in some sense is not fair (I'd like to get rid of bullshit extracurricular or stupid ass essay requirements - I hated those student government douches), but do we want to be like China where 1 test determines everything? <<
No one wants admissions to be based on one test or the same admissions system in China.
In fact, the stellar Asian Americans, by en large, are not immigrants from China at all, but they are American born or native-born Americans, who are well aculturated and most talented, have the highest SAT I (in Math as well as Verbal)and SAT II scores and the highest GPAs, spectacular ECs, national and international awards in the arts and math/sciences, and meet the highest holistic criteria for admissions to the elite schools, such as special talents, motivation, perseverance, hard work ethic, excellent essays, and overcoming obstabcles such as poverty and culture differences, yet they have the lowest admissions rates. They are subjected anti-Asian American quotas with racist stereotypes as being only one-dimensional math/science geeks with only interests in piano and violin. This stereotype is the furtest from the truth and is perpetuated by these racist stereotypes and cultural biases of the adcoms of these elite schools as an excuse for the anti-Asian American quotas. They said the same things about the Jews, but today there are no quotas against Jews, because they are over 30% of Harvard and 25% of all the Ivies, for their 2 1/2 % ( two and one-half percent) of the population.
This is about racist quotas against the most STELLAR Asian American applicants who are required to meet a higher standard of achievement and a higher holistic criteria for admissions and the BAR is set higher for them in every respect, than for any other racial or ethnic group, such as whites, blacks and Latinos. The Ivies did the same for the Jews in the past, but no more. Anti-Asian American quotas should be eliminated. These quotas still exist, because the other groups just cannot compete against Asian Americans, without these quotas.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060847) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 9:33 AM Author: obsidian supple home azn My first point was the fact that I don't think it matters if you go to a top college or a less than top college in terms of future earning/relative position in society so I'm not losing sleep when an Asian American has to go to Carnegie Mellon instead of Penn. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060925) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 9:44 AM Author: Boyish Set Would you lose sleep for a latino or black doing the same?
If not, let the less stellar student go to the less competitve college (TTT).
The race-preference proponents are loosing sleep if you do the same for blacks and latinos. It's called the "cascade effect". Read about it. You are saying that it is OK for more stellar Asian Americans to go to less selective colleges and to be denied to highly selective colleges, but NOT OK for academically deficient and underprepared blacks, latinos and even whites to attend more competitive colleges, denying the stellar Asian Americans.
WTF are you? A hypocrite?
If you had said that about African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, etc., you would have been denounced as a racist, but you said it only for Asian Americans, the most stellar group of applicants. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2060961) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 10:02 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Transparent Discrimination http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/kirsanow200311190903.asp
November 19, 2003, 9:03 a.m.
Transparent Discrimination "What is the termination date of your racial-preference policy?"
By Peter Kirsanow
Senate Democrats have introduced a bill that would require colleges to report the race and socioeconomic status of students admitted as "legacies" — i.e., children of alumni — or through early-decision programs. Colleges that fail to comply would be stripped of eligibility for federal financial aid.
The bill's supporters maintain that legacy and early-decision admissions disproportionately favor white and wealthy applicants, amounting to "white affirmative action." (Low-income students are less likely to apply for early-decision admission, since early-decision programs commit a student to one school and thereby eliminate a student's ability to play schools against one another for more favorable financial aid packages.)
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Golden reports that the ultimate aim of the bill's supporters is to prompt colleges to drop such admissions preferences. Golden quotes Sen. Kennedy as stating that the reporting requirements would help students and families make "informed, strategic application and enrollment decisions unconstrained by financial need."
Sen. Kennedy goes on to state that "[c]ollege admissions systems should promote diversity, reward achievement and be fair."
Sen. Kennedy is absolutely right. Unfortunately, today's Supreme Court-approved preferential-admissions programs reward race and ethnicity more readily than academic achievement. They are patently unfair. And "diversity" frequently amounts to nothing more than conformance to liberal orthodoxy — as evidenced by the proliferation of the requirement that applicants submit "diversity essays" satisfactory to the racial politburo.
But the bill is on the right track. It simply doesn't go far enough.
Students would greatly benefit from yet more transparency in the college-admissions process. That process contains elements that favor some applicants far more than mere legacy preferences. Legacy applicants are two to three times more likely to be admitted than their non-legacy comparatives. If Sen. Kennedy thinks that's unfair, he should be outraged by the fact that many colleges employ admissions criteria that favor some students over others by a factor of up to 200 to 1. Surely then, colleges should be required to report information about such criteria, the unfairness of which dwarfs that of legacy or early admissions.
Toward that end, there should be no objection to attaching to Sen. Kennedy's bill provisions mandating that colleges that receive federal aid provide answers to the following questions:
1. Does your school discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity?
Colleges needn't be shy about responding to this inquiry. After all, the Supreme Court allows elite colleges to discriminate on the basis of race. Since virtually every non-open enrollment school (and even some of those) uses racial preferences in admissions, no one school will stick out. And most colleges loudly proclaim their allegiance to diversity, so they should be eager to respond.
2. If the answer to the above question is "yes," which races/ethnicities are preferred and which are not?
Most studies show that schools employing racial-preference programs favor blacks and Hispanics over whites and Asians, but a comprehensive analysis has yet to be done.
3. What is the median high school GPA/SAT of your school's applicant pool? (Please disaggregate by race/ethnicity.)
This shouldn't be a burden. A scan of college guides shows that most schools already compile this information.
4. What is the median GPA/SAT of admittees from non-preferred racial/ethnic groups? From preferred racial/ethnic groups? (Disaggregate by specific race and ethnicity.)
Here is where college administrators will start to sweat. At many elite schools the median GPA differential between non-preferred and preferred admittees is nearly a full point; the median SAT differential can exceed 200 points. This is a serious legal problem because the Supreme Court only allows race/ethnicity to be used as a "plus" — a feather on the scale — in admissions. But in practice, the right race/ethnicity has the weight of an anvil. The data would almost certainly reveal that few if any schools are actually complying with Grutter. That means litigation.
Furthermore, the data collected from the answers to the above questions will assist in the calculation of an applicant's odds of admission to a particular school. Most schools already disclose the overall percentage of applicants who are admitted in any given year. Elite schools sometimes showcase these figures as proof of their exclusivity. However, these figures are incomplete and misleading. They fail to reveal that an applicant's chances of admission rise exponentially if he/she is a preferred minority. For example, thanks to the analysis of Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai at the Center for Equal Opportunity, we all know that the typical black applicant is 174 times more likely to be admitted to Michigan than his white counterpart. But at some schools (and at certain GPA/SAT levels) the odds for preferred minorities can be significantly greater than that.
As Sen. Kennedy noted, this type of information would allow students and families to make "informed, strategic application and enrollment decisions." An Asian student with a 3.5 GPA and 1300 SAT may decide not to waste an application fee on a school where his odds of admission are only one-tenth that of a preferred minority with a 2.5 GPA and an 1100 SAT.
5. What are your school's five-year graduation rates? (Please provide this data broken down by race/ethnicity.)
The graduation rates for preferred minorities are abysmal, frequently up to 20 percentage points below those of whites and Asians. There is also some limited data that suggest that the more heavily a school relies on racial preferences, the lower the school's graduation rate for preferred minorities. While this may be intuitively plain — the greater the preferences, the more likely a school would attract more under-qualified applicants unable to compete against non-preferred students — no comprehensive database exists to gauge the degree of the disparity.
Students and parents could use this information in making enrollment decisions. Why enroll at a school where the data suggests you only have a 35 percent probability of earning a degree, especially if you have to pay $20,000 in tuition for the privilege of flunking out? The publication of such information might also embarrass some schools into taking measures to improve their numbers.
Providing the above information is a small price to pay for the right to discriminate on the basis of race. But the Grutter rationale, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests colleges should provide even more information. The Grutter opinion refers to things such as critical mass, racially neutral alternatives, duration, and the educational benefits of diversity.
Accordingly, several more questions should be put to colleges:
Did your school consider race-neutral alternatives to your racially discriminatory policy? If so, which ones? Why were they rejected?
What are the educational benefits the school allegedly derives from a diverse student body? How did the school make that assessment? What's the evidence of these benefits?
What is your school's minority population? What is your school's critical mass of preferred minorities? How did you arrive at that figure? What data support your determination?
What is the termination date of your racial-preference policy?
Publication of the answers to these questions would have an interesting effect not just on the educational and public-policy establishments, but on the market as well. More information would allow consumers (students) to make more rational application and enrollment decisions. This in turn might require colleges to adjust their admissions policies in response.
Federal, state, and local governments require banks, insurers, manufacturers, contractors, and other employers to provide copious racial data. Colleges should provide the data also. But that would lead to much protest, embarrassment, and litigation — so don't expect to see this information any time soon.
— Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2061011) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 3:01 PM Author: Sinister autistic indian lodge trump supporter It is not the duty of any school to admit a class of the finest, most gifted applicants. Diversity and targeting a specific type of class are are two important goals.
I doubt anyone would be opposed to Bob Jones rejecting a 4.0/1600/5x800 athiest. Likewise, people shouldn't find fault in Harvard rejecting a group of 4.0/1600/5x800 uncreative, quasi-intelligent, academic workhorses who'll throw curves by forgoing a socal life to study 140hrs a week. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2062743) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 3:09 PM Author: Boyish Set >> Harvard rejecting a group of 4.0/1600/5x800 uncreative, quasi-intelligent, academic workhorses who'll throw curves by forgoing a socal life to study 140hrs a week. <<
You missed the point. This is not about what you said.
This is about RACIAL QUOTAS.
Again, RACIAL DIVERSITY is a de facto racial quota, which is against the basic tenets of the US Constitution.
I am all for "diversity", but true diversity transcends race.
This is about racist quotas against the most STELLAR Asian American applicants who are required to meet a higher standard of achievement and a higher holistic criteria for admissions and the BAR is set higher for them in every respect, than for any other racial or ethnic group, such as whites, blacks and Latinos. The Ivies did the same for the Jews in the past, but no more. Anti-Asian American quotas should be eliminated. These quotas still exist, because the other groups just cannot compete against Asian Americans, without these quotas.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2062814) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 3:21 PM Author: Sinister autistic indian lodge trump supporter Could you define "most SELLAR" (don't say GPA and SAT), and show that Asian Americans are indeed disadvantaged? The numbers that I've seen the few articles that I've read don't necessarily support this claim.
Ideally, diversity would trancend race, but it doesn't. Many factors that make a 'truely' diverse campus can be best judged by race. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2062921) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:24 PM Author: Boyish Set >> Ideally, diversity would trancend race, but it doesn't. Many factors that make a 'truely' diverse campus can be best judged by race. <<
Bullshit and doubletalk. Admissions should be race blind. Reread my previous posts.
The Ivies, would have to change or abolish race based AA, but not all of AA, such as economic AA or even legacy AA, or athletic AA. The other forms of AA TRANSCEND race, and race-based AA violates the 14th Amendment of equal access. A black can be a legacy, an athlete, etc..
The STELLAR Asian American applicant:
Asian Americans are required to meet higher objective standards of achievement, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and a higher holistic criteria than any other group, including blacks, latinos and whites, in order to be admitted. The holistic criteria consists of charcacter, leadership, special talents, athletic skills, awards (Intel Finalists, International Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympiad Gold Medals, national literary and music awards, etc.)motivations, perseverance, and the overcoming of obstacles, such as economic disadvantage and cultural and language differences for Asian Americans, from being one of the smallest racial minorities in America. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063620) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:29 PM Author: Alcoholic shrine WTF is this shit? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063676) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:37 PM Author: Boyish Set Blacks admitted with the race preference and AA are NOT EQUALLY QUALIFIED. If they were, they would not need PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN ADMISSIONS and AA would be totally uneccessary.
You can't have it both ways.
Certainly, there are blacks who are admitted to the Ivies and other competitive colleges with EQUAL QUALIFICATIONS, without the benefit of race based Affirmative Action and preferential treatment. They are pitifully very few in number, because the black applicant group , by en large, lack the qualifications on an equal basis with the rest of the admitted class. According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE), if lower standards and qualifications were not used for blacks with race based AA, blacks would only be between 1% to 2% of the highly competitive colleges, instead of the 6% to 8% blacks that are there now who were admitted by lower standards and qualifications, enabling thousands upon thousands of addittional blacks to attend the elite, highly selective and more competitive colleges.
These underprepared, lower qualified blacks really belong in the lower tier colleges and there is nothing wrong with this, because there are 4000 other institutions of higher learning in America, giving plenty of opportunity for blacks, as well as anyone of any race, to obtain a higher education, because over 98% of Americans who received college degrees were educated in these other schools. Students should attend schools commensurate with their qualifications and preparedness according to the qualifications of the students in each school. Every other American does, so why not blacks? There is abundant opportunity for everyone to acheive a college education in America in the year 2005, especially for blacks. There are the community colleges, city and smaller state colleges and other private colleges which collectively represent the best higher educational system in the world.
"An Asian student with a 3.5 GPA and 1300 SAT may decide not to waste an application fee on a school where his odds of admission are only one-tenth that of a preferred minority (black) with a 2.5 GPA and an 1100 SAT." if these schools made their admissions process more transparent and let the truth be known, exposing the perversity of the process and how demented, unfair and immoral it is. These schools will never reveal their admissions data according to each admissions standard used and the criteria met by each student, DISAGGREGATED by race and ethnic group, because this will expose the adcoms hypocrisy, their double and triple standards in admissions, by using different standards of admission for different groups. Asian Americans are required to meet higher objective standards of achievement, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and a higher holistic criteria than any other group, including blacks, latinos and whites, in order to be admitted. The holistic criteria consists of charcacter, leadership, special talents, awards (Intel Finalists, International Math, Physics and Chemistry Olympiad Gold Medals, national literary and music awards, etc.)motivations, perseverance, and the overcoming of obstacles, such as economic disadvantage and cultural and language differences for Asian Americans, from being one of the smallest racial minorities in America.
Again, being "qualified" for a black admitted with race prefrences with lower standards through race based AA DOES NOT MEAN EQUALLY QUALIFIED. If this black was EQUALLY QUALIFIED, there would be no need for preferential treatment in admissions. Its all relative.
The purpose of race based AA in elite college admissions is not legally justified to "right the previous wrong of slavery" in the US Supreme Court, but to provide diversity for the class, whose benefits have yet to be proven. The Court never justified the use of race as a factor in college admissions to "right the wrong" of black slavery which was abolished over 150 years ago. The court never ok'd the use of one wrong to "right" another wrong. In fact, the swing vote, Justice Sandra O'Connor, in the US Supreme Court decision's 5 to 4 in favor of the use of race as a factor in the U.of Michigan Law School case, said it should only be used for another 25 years. Well it has been 40 years since the first use of AA, and it has solved nothing in closing the racial gaps in academic achievement, execpt for benefitting underperforming and underachieving midlde and upper class blacks, admitted with lower standards via race preferences and AA. Over 2/3 of these blacks are children of immigrants from the Carribean and Africa, and not the descendents of Americans slaves, the intended beneficiaries of AA. Why should UNDERPERFORMING AND UNDERACHIEVEING affluent blacks who are are not descendants of Afro-American slaves receive a HUGE tip in admissions based soley on the black color of their skins?? The decendants of Afro-American slaves were the ones who sufferred under Jim Crow, not the affluent black immigrants from Africa and the Carribean. They do not deserve race prefrences.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063744) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2005 1:17 AM Author: Razzmatazz plaza Subject: *by and large* not "by en large" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2066734) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:43 PM Author: lime exciting locale clown And this stuff never happens to white people. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063806) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:48 PM Author: Boyish Set Date: February 2nd, 2005 9:15 PM Author: hero Subject: Asian Ams - "The New Calculus of Diversity on Campus,"
2/2/03 New York Times: "The New Calculus of Diversity on Campus,"
By Jacques Steinberg
At public universities in California and Texas, the end of affirmative
action in admissions has benefited one minority: Asian-Americans.
And if the Supreme Court decides later this year to limit or eliminate
race-conscious admissions at the University of Michigan, Asian-
Americans stand to gain far more than any other group, at least in
proportion to their numbers in the general population.
Their experience in the admissions process provides yet another
prism through which to view the affirmative action debate. As things
stand now, a relatively low percentage of Asian-American students are
admitted to many top private and public institutions, nearly all of which
practice affirmative action, compared with the high numbers of the
arguably qualified among them.
But if the Supreme Court phases out race-conscious admissions,
the number of Asian-American students can be expected to soar, at
the expense of other groups, even whites.
The statistics in California and Texas give ammunition to critics of
affirmative action who say that some applicants, primarily white or
Asian-American, are being rejected in favor of blacks and Hispanics
who may not be as accomplished, at least as measured by
standardized-test scores and grade-point averages.
But the same statistics also provide ammunition to those who
support race-conscious admissions and who argue that unless
colleges give special attention to black and Hispanic applicants,
whites and Asians could lay claim to all but a handful of the spots on
some campuses.
To gain a sense of how the composition of a student body can shift,
consider the University of Texas at Austin.
After a federal court in 1996 barred the University of Texas from
practicing affirmative action, the state began offering admission to all
high school students ranked in the top 10% of their classes. Given the
racial and economic segregation in the state's high schools, the
assumption was that blacks and Hispanics would be given a fairer
chance to enroll, without having to compete directly with whites who
lived in richer districts.
But as it turned out, the main beneficiaries were Asian-Americans.
The percentage of freshmen entering the Austin campus who were
Asian-American rose to 18% last fall, compared with 14% in the fall
of 1995. Thus, almost one in five freshmen at the university's flagship
school is Asian, in a state where only about three of 100 residents are.
As the admission rate of Asian students rose, to 71% from 68%
over that period, the admission rate of whites fell, by one percentage
point to 66%. So did that of blacks, to 43% from 59%.
Hispanics were admitted at a rate of 56% in 2002, down from 72%
in 1995. They make up about a third of the state population but less
than a fifth of the freshman class at Austin.
Asked to explain the dynamic, Bruce Walker, the director of
admissions at Austin, said, "Obviously they are the top students in
their schools."
"Any state that goes to a percent plan and has a significant number
of Asians will discover that Asians will be the ones who will benefit
most," he added.
In California, where Asians make up 11% of the general population,
the gains were also striking after the state ended traditional affirmative
action in the late 1990's and adopted a system similar to that of Texas.
At Berkeley, the percentage of the freshman class that was
Asian-American rose 6 percentage points, to 45%, in 2001. Over the
same period, the percentage of the class that was black fell by three
percentage points, to 4%; the percentage that was white dropped by
one percentage point, to 29%; and the percentage that was Hispanic
fell by six percentage points, to 11%.
Contrast that with the experience of the University of Michigan Law
School, which practices race-conscious admissions in a typical way,
with admissions officers considering applicants' test scores and
grades, as well as their backgrounds. Along with the undergraduate
program, which uses a more formulaic approach that awards extra
points to a black or Hispanic applicant, the law school is a defendant
in the lawsuits being heard by the Supreme Court.
When, for example, it assembled its class for the fall of 1999, the
law school accepted only one of the 61 Asian-Americans, or 2%, who
were ranked in the middle range of the applicant pool, as defined by
their grades and test scores, according to court filings. The admission
rate for whites with similar grades and scores was 3%.
But among black applicants with similar transcripts, 22 out of 27,
or 81%, were offered admission.
Michigan, like other selective colleges, defends the lift given to black
applicants, as well as to Hispanics, for two main reasons: to level the
playing field for what it calls underrepresented minorities, who might
not have the educational advantages of many whites and Asians, and
to enhance the educational experience of all students by immersing
them in a diverse environment.
Though supportive of affirmative action for black and Hispanic
applicants in particular, Evelyn Hu-DeHart, a professor of history and
ethnic studies at Brown, said she took offense at the perception that
there might be a threshold for how many Asians on a campus was too
many.
"I'll tell you what is discriminatory in the case of Texas," said Ms.
Hu-DeHart, who emigrated from China in the 1960's. "They don't say
whites are overrepresented. They're pitting Asian-Americans against
blacks and Latinos by saying Asian-Americans are taking your place."
She added: "Let Asians compete freely with white students."
(How Whites Use Asians to Further Anti-Black racism)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063859) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:50 PM Author: lime exciting locale clown I think it's different for private schools. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063889) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 4:53 PM Author: Boyish Set UC Berkeley uses Comprehensive Review today in their admissions procedure, which is similar to that of the Ivies, supposedly with a difference and that is race does not play a role for UC admissions. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2063920) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2005 9:47 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: To ltorivia4 ---To debunk your stereotypes of Asian Americans Asian Americans to my knowledge HAVE NEVER received race-based AA in elite college admissions. They never asked for it, nor they want it or require it for admissions to Harvard or the elites. Race-based AA discriminates against Asians Americans with de facto quotas limiting their numbers, not increasing their numbers, no matter what criteria or standards are used for admission EVEN EXCLUDING SAT SCORES AND GPAs. Asian Americans have all the characteristics necessary for admission, including sports, special talents, motivation, hard work, creativity and the overcoming of hardships and economic disadvantage.
Of course if you factor in SAT scores and GPAs Asian Americans will win hands down without considering other criteria for admissions. What I am saying is that even if you FACTOR OUT SAT scores and GPAs and use holistic criteria only, leaving race out as a factor for admissions, Asian Americans are also disproporrtionately qualified. THEY ARE NOT ONE-DIMENSIONAL PRE-MED VIOLINIISTS, according to the RACIST stereotypes used by some, because they are in every field of study and endeavor and in every field of extracurricular activities on the college campus.There is no truth to this stereotype. For instance, just look at the writers for the Harvard Crimson or any other college newspaper. There are hardly ANY Blacks or Latinos as writers on the college newspaper staffs, but many Asian Americans .Students at Brown even bemoaned this fact. Look at Harvard's 41 varsity sports teams which are non-contact, such as tennis or gymnastics. Asians are well represented. The Yale women's team in Gymnastics won the Ivy Championship last year with their best NATIONALLY ranked female gymnast, Ms. Fong, a Chinese American,and a graduate of St. Ann's School in Brooklyn, NYC, a prestigious day prep ranked as a top feeder for the Ivies by Worth Magazine and the Wall Street Journal. The best tennis player on the Exeter's New England Prep League Championship team was a Chinese American last year which enabled the team to dominate in its league. Andover's best female swimmer on their women's League championship team this year is a Korean born swimmer who qualified for the summer Olympics and enabled the Andover team to dominate female swimming. I could go on and on tto break these racist stereotypes of Asian American students.
We must eliminate race-based admissions. Admissions must be race-neutral.
Asian Americans are required to meet a higher standard of achievement for admissions and this most highly qualified group are admitted at the lowest rates compared to very other group, including whites.
Studies (done internally when charges of bias were presented) at Brown and Stanford have clearly disputed the stereotyped image of an Asian American applicant as being "one dimensional" with no extracurricular activities except for music. This image only existed in the biased views of the some of the admission officers. These studies have shown that there was an unexplained bias in admissions and in fact, the Asian American group appeared better prepared by any standards used, yet had only a 60% to 70% admission rate compared to the white applicant group at Stanford. The Admissions Dean of Stanford could not explain the disparity, but at least she admitted that there was one. Many of the heads and admission officers of the elite schools don't even acknowledge that the problem even exists. The Asian applicants were better prepared than the white group, yet have a lower admission rate.
Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid discovered, after an inquiry, that between 1982 and 1985 Asian Americans were one-third less likely than whites to be offered admission, even though they were on average better prepared than white applicants. Annual Report of CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in "Campus Report", November 12, 1986.
Some admissions officials have complained that Asian Americans tend to be lacking in extracurricular and personal qualities, which universities consider along with grades to ensure that they get well-rounded individuals. But there is no systematic evidence to this; indeed a report by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMI) at Brown, established to investigate charges of anti-Asian discrimination, found such assumptions to be the result of "cultural bias and stereotypes which prevail in the admissions office." In the early 1980s, these attitudes contributed to a 14% acceptance rate for Asians, who are on the average the best qualified applicants to Brown, compared to the other students who averaged an acceptance rate of 20%. See Report of CCMI, Brown University, February 1984. Between 1978 and 1986, there was a 430% increase of Asian Americans applying to Brown, but the number of these students remained fairly constant. Grace Tsang, "Equal Access of Asian-Americans", "Yale Law Journal", January 1989, pp. 659-78.'
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2065758) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2005 10:37 AM Author: Boyish Set Trickmaster, read this thread. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2074147) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 11:11 AM Author: light big goyim associate I'm curious how would people feel if we got rid of affirmative action in the workplace?
People, including Asians, complain about hitting the glass ceiling. Corporate America, at least the top positions, are still overhwelmingly white and male. Imagine if we got rid of AA.... (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2080088) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 11:25 AM Author: Boyish Set >> I'm curious how would people feel if we got rid of affirmative action in the workplace? <<
Totally different topic. You are again avoiding the OP's topic.
This is off-topic, but you could start another thread, but don't ignore or avoid the OP's topic on THIS THREAD, "Re: Anti-Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies" and the elite colleges. You haven't answered the questions in the debate or given any credible responses for your support of race-based AA and the racist anti-Asian American quotas, and you don't deny their existence. This, in itself, is morally and legally wrong and unconstitutional. Asian Americans are the only non-preferred group in elite colleges because of these biased, racist and bigoted quotas established with double standards in admissions. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2080129) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:09 PM Author: motley tanning salon If affirmative action was eliminated everywhere, including the workplace, I predict that nothing would really change with regard to Asian Americans.
My rationale is that the elite colleges and graduate / professional would be dominated by Asian Americans, and businesses would hence recruit more Asian Americans. However, the inherent perception of Asian Americans as lacking in people skills, whether true or not, would prevent Asian Americans from rising higher in the corporate ladder, just as it is doing today.
The next generation will be interesting to watch, as the next crop of HYP ABTs and ABCs grab the brass ring and run, so to speak. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2124980) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2005 11:05 PM Author: Boyish Set bump (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2085096) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 2:39 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Trickster is lost for words (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2107555) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2005 1:12 PM Author: Boyish Set OPPOSE WASHINGTON STATE'S PROPOSAL TO RESTORE REVERSE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN-AMERICANS
Regarding "racial diversity":
1/23/04 Seattle Post Intelliger: “Bill would allow universities to consider race in admissions,”
Olympia -- Legislative proposals to incorporate race as a factor in admissions to Washington's public universities is necessary to help diversify the state's student body and its work force, a Senate panel was told yesterday. [translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] All 15 individuals who testified before the Higher Education Committee gave resounding support to the measures. With Senate Bill 6268 and its companion, House Bill 2700, legislators and Gov. Gary Locke hope to incorporate the language of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling into Washington state law. The nation's high court ruled that race could be considered in admissions. "This bill is about providing flexibility to our public universities and colleges in evaluating their applicants for admission individually, taking into consideration all of the factors, attributes and experiences of an applicant," said Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle. [translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] The bills would amend Initiative 200, which state voters approved in 1998. I-200 expressly prohibited the government from discriminating against or giving preference to individuals based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. If lawmakers approve the plan, public universities would be able to take into account race, color, ethnicity and national origin when admitting students. However, colleges and universities would be prohibited from using quotas or set-aside slots specifically for students of color. "There is nothing wrong with examining all the background characteristics of a student," said Sen. Don Carlson, R-Vancouver, chairman of the panel. "It absolutely does not violate the citizens' decision in the passage of Initiative 200." At the hearing, Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley , raised several concerns about the language of the bill. She questioned why the bill left out admissions policies allowing sex as a factor as well. Pflug also questioned the bill's vague definition of "diversity." "They are allowed to use race to create some kind of diverse atmosphere but what does that mean?" asked Pflug. "More of a particular race, less of a particular race, what constitutes diverse?" [translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] The Washington Policy Center, a non-profit research organization for limiting government involvement, opposes the new proposals saying they go against the voters' decision for I-200 blocking unequal treatment of applicants because of their race. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, numbers of minority Washingtonians are rising. The Hispanic population is the largest minority population with 441,509 members followed by 322,335 Asians, 190,267 blacks, 93,301 American Indians and Alaska natives and 23,953 native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. Of the approximately 5.9 million residents of Washington , the Hispanic population composed about 7.5 percent in the 2000 Census. But 2003 Hispanic enrollment in the University of Washington 's graduate and professional programs was only 2.9 percent. Overall, enrollment in the graduate and professional programs was 14 percent minority students, according to Julia Harrison, president of UW's Graduate and Professional Student Senate. [translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] Representatives from major higher learning institutions across the state testified in support of the senate bill. Representatives from the University of Washington, Washington State University, The Evergreen State College and Centralia College stated their need to factor race in their admissions policies to attain a more diversified student body. Delegates said new policies would enhance learning and educate a varied future work force. [translation without liberal bias: There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] Since 1999, the University of Washington admissions policy promoted the diversity of students without looking at race. The UW's total student enrollment increased by about 4,000 students since 1998, but numbers of underrepresented students declined in most cases, according to Tim Washburn, UW assistant vice president for enrollment services. [translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] "Although we've maintained numbers in some areas, the proportion of students in almost all of the underrepresented areas has declined," said Washburn. [translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] Minority admissions declined after the passage of I-200. Numbers have since gradually increased. [translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] Representatives from the State Board of Health and the Washington State Hispanic Bar Association of the King County Bar Association testified to the rising need for diverse employees. The percentage of Hispanics working in the legal profession does not match those using the legal system, according to Joaquin Hernandez of the Washington Hispanic Bar Association of the King County Bar Association. [translation without liberal bias: When selection was color blind, the number of Asian-Americans increased. Therefore bigots for the left have been engaging in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans for 20 years. There are too many Asian-Americans and not enough blacks and Hispanics. Therefore, let's engage in reverse discrimination against Asian-Americans] Last June the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two related decisions affecting the way public universities admit students, particularly students of color. The court decided 5-4 to uphold the University of Michigan 's law school's affirmative action policy. This policy took race into account but did not include quotas or point systems in which minority applicants were given a set number of additional points. But the justices struck down the university's freshman admissions policy 6-3 regarding the handling of applicants' race. At that time, the freshman minority applicants were given additional points on the admission rating scale. The court said this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2108852) |
|
Date: February 12th, 2005 11:12 AM Author: Boyish Set Jay Mathews of the Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2004 said,
[But there is one part of his argument, a reference to a sad era in American history, that is hard to ignore. Many selective colleges before World War II had quotas on Jews. They turned down many brilliant applicants in favor of non-Jewish prep school students with lesser records. They didn't call this striving for diversity, but it was a perverse form of affirmative action, and it left a bitter taste for decades.]
[Chin calculates that with those quotas gone, about a third of Harvard undergraduates are Jews, who make up about 3 percent of the U.S. population. About 17 percent of Harvard undergraduates are Asians, who make up about 4 percent of the population. Since the percentage of Asian Americans at schools of comparable quality that do not practice affirmative action are much higher -- 40 percent at Berkeley, 50 percent at selective New York high schools such as Stuyvesant -- Chin says the Asian American percentage at Harvard and other Ivies would go up significantly if the rules were changed.] (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2114947) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 2:50 AM Author: motley tanning salon Subject: hello hero I appreciate your crusade (I am Asian-American) and I don't believe in AA as it stands, but American colleges are simply not going to let a tiny minority dominate the college demographics any further, no matter how much you post / bring attention to the issue. Statistically, asians are already totally over-represented and plus, we don't look caucasian so we cannot blend in like other ORMs like Jews, etc.
Moreover, no American is ever going to feel "sorry" for the poor, over-achieving, Asian-Americans, good lord, even I don't, and I'm an Asian-American myself!
I wish to make the suggestion that if we cannot realistically fix the system, let us at least emphasize that undergraduate is only a road to a higher education, and that going to Bumblefuck U (which I doubt any high-scoring Asian will do) is not going to be a huge factor if you decide to go onto law school, for example.
That being said, there is no reason that Asian-Americans should have to perform better than other races, quite frankly you can only perform better so much before you are already hitting 1600 on the SAT I, 800 on each SAT II, boatloads of ECs and WE and God knows what else, most Americans could not imagine the pressure that Asian-Americans face in competing against their peers.
/went to Yale UG, was rejected from Harvard for inexplicable reasons. Would be pretty bored if the entire undergraduate class was Asian. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120082) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 9:28 AM Author: Boyish Set >> /went to Yale UG, was rejected from Harvard for inexplicable reasons. Would be pretty bored if the entire undergraduate class was Asian. <<
Yale College will NOT BE ALL ASIAN AMERICAN if their quota were abolished. Yale is not ALL Jewish when Yale abolished the Jewish quota.
As far as elite graduate schools and professional schools are concerned, the same quota for Asian Americans exists there also. It is not only at Harvard or Yale, but in more than 100 to 150 elite schools, which use these racist limiting quotas against Asian Americans, capping their numbers, making the Asian Ams the only non-preferred group in admissions, with a limiting quota. Whites don't have it and Jews don't have it, making the Jews 25% of the whole Ivy League and most of the elite colleges for just 2% of the American population. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120869) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:28 AM Author: light big goyim associate As he stated earlier, Jews blend in with the greater white society. Can you honestly tell a Jew out of a diverse crowd? or a white crowd? I know I can't! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120903) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:30 AM Author: obsidian supple home azn It's not THAT hard to identify say 70% of them by sight. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120904) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:57 AM Author: light big goyim associate There are blonde, blue-eyed Jews. Therefore, I cannot tell most Jews in a crowd. The stereotypical ones, maybe, but not the broader range. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120937) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:08 AM Author: Boyish Set ltorivia485 said, >> There are blonde, blue-eyed Jews. Therefore, I cannot tell most Jews in a crowd. The stereotypical ones, maybe, but not the broader range. <<
Therefore, you CANNOT DEFINE "DIVERSITY" BY RACE OR SKIN, HAIR OR EYE COLOR, YOU MENTALLY DEFICIENT MORON.
And that's why, admissions must be race or color blind.
Comprendre?? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120955) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:14 AM Author: light big goyim associate How many guesses can I bet you can tell a black person from a typical college crowd at a white institution? 1?
Idiot. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120969) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:25 AM Author: Boyish Set That's the whole point, you stupid idiot.
You don't judge people by skin color and physical appearance, and you can't admit students by skin color or physical appearance by giving racial perferences in elite college admissions.
You are too fucking STUPID to even carry on a reasonable discourse as exemplified by your ludicrous remarks and responses to these posts.
ltorivia485, you are PLAIN FUCKING STUPID or least MENTALLY DEFICIENT TO SOME DEGREE. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120996) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:27 AM Author: light big goyim associate But people do it anyways. It's human nature. Heard of name discrimination? The moment you walk into an interview, people make assumptions based upon your race?
At least colleges don't ignore reality. But at the same time, blacks, hispanics and native Americans are such a low minority on campuses, colleges need more of them. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2121001) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:35 AM Author: Boyish Set So what again?
This does not mean that you have to act and judge people in the same manner as others judge you based on the color of your skin.
You should be above the others, because if you use race preferences based on color, you are no better than these racists who judge you based on your color. In fact you are below them and you will never rise above them. That's your contradiction and your HYPOCRISY.
Comprendre????Comprendre????Comprendre????Comprendre????Comprendre????Comprendre????Comprendre????Comprendre???? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2121021) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:39 AM Author: Boyish Set ltorivia485, you are REALLY STUPID, because DIVERSITY IS NOT SKIN DEEP OR SKIN COLOR OR EVEN PHYSICAL APPEARANCE!!
You have completely burst your own bubble for your belief that diversity is based on just a "white" skin, or on a "black" or "yellow" skin, and physical appearance. Don't you see how ludicrous your definition of "diversity" is? Just because Jews are white, does not mean they are completely "white". Pre WW II, many WASPs in the Ivies viewed Jews not only as non whites, but as inhuman, fearing they will OVERRUN the Ivies and elite colleges, if the anti-Jewish quota were abolished. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120916) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:59 AM Author: light big goyim associate Unfortunately, society does judge people on their outside package. That is a fact. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120940) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:16 AM Author: Boyish Set ltorivia485 said, >> Unfortunately, society does judge people on their outside package. That is a fact. <<
So what? Does this mean that you have to do the same with racial preferences for blacks?? This will only backfire against you.
And that's why you and the others who do so are RACISTS. Don't blame and WHINE about the others who do judge people by the color of their skin, and not by the content of their character ( remember MLK? ).
You are so flawed in your reasoning, and so blinded by your knee-jerk use of the race card, that you DON'T KNOW WTF YOU ARE SAYING, TRIPPING OVER YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN WORDS. I sadly say that your stupidity is glaring and rearing its ugly head.
Dumb and Dumber!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120971) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:31 AM Author: obsidian supple home azn One way to fight injustice is to give up and go to Asia where theoretically you wouldn't face "race" quotas. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120905) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:48 AM Author: Boyish Set >> One way to fight injustice is to give up and go to Asia where theoretically you wouldn't face "race" quotas. <<
Tell Americans of Italian, Irish, Scottish, Bosnian, Iranian, African, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, Israeli, Indian, Sri Lankian, French, German, Belgium, Russian, Cuban, Haitian, Jamaican, Argentinian descents to go go back to where they came from., you racist moran. You get the drift?
America IS BEAUTIFUL and IS GREAT because everone stayed, your fucking idiot. Asian Americans are not going anywhere because, they are AMERICANS. They are also growing at the fastest rate of any other group, even more so than latinos, the largest minority group in America at 13% of the population.
The WASPs told the Irish to go back to where they came from.. The Irish told the Italians to go back. The WASPs told the Jews to go back. The whites told the blacks to go back and the whites told the Chinese to go back more than 100 years ago, yet every group stayed.
You are stupid!!
God Bless America!! Our America!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2120928) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 9:32 AM Author: obsidian supple home azn While I agree with you on your overall point, I disagree with your premises.
If China and East Asia become more desirable places to live, lots of people will move back especially if it becomes an even more desirable place to live than the US. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128219) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 11:37 AM Author: Boyish Set I certainly can't "move back" and the vast majority of Asian American students "can't move back", simply because they are American born. They are not foreigners, or aliens, but Americans, some for many generations. The parents of some of these students may have been immigrants, but they are still Americans, as American Afro and white Americans, many of whom speak with foreign accents on the streets of NYC and all of America?
Comprendre?
Why don't you tell that Italian Americans, who have the highest numbers of foreign born and of immigration to America, to "go back".
You don't have a point.
You are are spewing the "perpetual foreigner" stereotype for Asian Americans, which is RACIST on your part. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128624) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 1:17 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: ltorivia485, read the following: Date: February 13th, 2005 9:42 AM Author: hero Subject: Hey Tricky, read this.
2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald
Brown University Class of '05
16,500 applicants
Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances
African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances
2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (www.dailypennsylvanian.com): Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvania’s Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
There is someting EVIL about this.
According to Lee Stetson, Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are "today's Jews". With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews", or to be limited by quotas.
Overrepresentation?
Jews are overepresented by a factor of FIFTHTEEN (15) at Harvard. Jews are the most overrepresented group at Harvard and the Ivies, yet you say that Asian Ams are overrepresented. The Asian overrepresentation pales next to JEWISH OVERRREPRESENTATION, yet there is no quota or willfull policy to suppress Jewish numbers.
I am against all quotas.
(Quotas for Asian Americans? Yes and No)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: February 13th, 2005 9:42 AM Author: hero Subject: Hey Tricky, read this again.
The Facts:
Here are the facts of admission for Brown from the Brown Daily Herald, which are similar in all the Ivies and many of the Elite Colleges:
The percent of African American and Hispanic students in selective college freshman classes is often higher than the percent of applicants from that group, while the opposite is true of Asian Americans. In 2001, 20.3 percent of applicants to Brown University's class of 2005 were Asian American, but only 16 percent of the acceptances were. The percent of white applicants and acceptances was about the same, 66 percent, while African Americans comprised 9 percent of the acceptances and only 6 percent of the applicants, and Hispanics had 9 percent of the acceptances and only 7.1 percent of the applicants.
Asian Americans are accepted at two-thirds the acceptance rate of whites and at much, much lower rates than blacks and Hispanics at Brown for the Class of 2005.
WHITES ARE 66% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 66% OF THE ACCEPTANCES, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS ARE 20.3% OF THE APPLICANTS AND 16% OF THE ACCEPTANCES.
IF BROWN IS GIVING SLOTS TO BLACKS AND LATINOS AND THESE SLOTS ARE A GIVEN, WHITES DON'T LOOSE, BUT ASIAN AMERICANS LOOSE. OF COURSE BLACKS AND LATINOS GAIN FROM AA.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS, IF THE BLACK AND LATINO GAINS ARE A GIVEN.
NOW, WHO IS THE "PRESTIGE WHORE' AND "SELFISH", BUT YOU, AND WHITES, TRICKMASTER?? YOU HYPOCRITE. LET ASIAN AMERICANS COMPETE AGAINST WHITES ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, SANS QUOTAS, TRICKMASTER, YOU FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. WHITES DON'T LOOSE. BLACKS AND LATINOS GAIN. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE!!
WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS!! WHITES DON'T LOOSE. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH LOWER ADMIT RATES THAN WHITES DESPITE BEING MORE QUALIFIED ACCORDING TO ALL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA USED IN ADMISSIONS!!
WHITES DON'T LOOSE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ASIAN AMERICANS!! WHITES DON'T LOOSE. ASIAN AMERICANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOOSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH LOWER ADMIT RATES THAN WHITES DESPITE BEING MORE QUALIFIED ACCORDING TO ALL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA USED IN ADMISSIONS!!
Race based AA in the elite colleges have worsen the state of blacks over the course of its use and have not solved anything.
From Jay Mathews:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26499-2004Oct12?language=printer
[He noted the recent estimate by Harvard humanities professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. that two thirds of blacks at Harvard were not descendants of American slaves, but the middle class children of relatively recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. "Why should they deserve admission with lowered standards (relatively speaking) based solely on the color of their skin over a high achieving Asian American living in a Chinatown ghetto or a Black ghetto (many Asians live in Black and Latino ghettos) or a poor white from the slums of NYC?" Chin said.]
[The solution to the problem of lower average achievement among African Americans and Hispanics is not "the Band-Aid approach of race-based affirmative action," Chin said. "It is solved by improving the K-12 schools for the lower economic classes which are disproportionately Black and Latino."]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2121490) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 5:55 PM Author: Bronze dragon people who are hurt with all due respect, you have to be a complete tool to move to a blue collar town and enter a ms usa teen pageant just for the sake of going to college. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2123190) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:26 AM Author: motley tanning salon Agreed. But say, for the sake of argument, that you could move somewhere else and raise your IQ by 40 points, ensure future job prospects, and increase your net future earnings by over three million dollars. Then the question becomes much more complicated.
I will say that I was one of those people that was lucky to get out of a town full of hyper-competitive Asians Americans (my parents were remarkably foresighted). I have no doubt that this was what led to my matriculation at Yale; within the Asian American community, I doubt I would have been accepted at any of the HYP. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126627) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 5:56 PM Author: Aphrodisiac senate But I thought everyone in China and India was a respectable doctor or engineer. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2123197) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 7:01 PM Author: Boyish Set Asian Americans don't live in China or India. Contrary to your beliefs, Asian Americans live in America and not all of them are doctors or engineers. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2123535) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 7:03 PM Author: light big goyim associate What do YOU do for a living? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2123541) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:22 PM Author: motley tanning salon How is this relevant?
P.S. Let me say that I am impressed with your civility, although I don't agree with much that you say. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2125086) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:49 PM Author: Boyish Set Racism and bigotry know no civility. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2125749) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:02 AM Author: motley tanning salon Perhaps, but civility is imperative to overcoming racism and bigotry. This is why MLK succeeded where Malcolm X could not.
/big Malcolm X fan (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2125874) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 7:06 PM Author: Salmon outnumbered fat ankles legal warrant This topic needs to die......
NOW. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2123554) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 8:24 PM Author: Boyish Set You wish it would die, but it is not going to. Flame on!!
How could this topic die, when all the bigots and racists are coming out of the woodwork??
Flame on!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2124152) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 10:00 PM Author: light big goyim associate What do YOU do for a living? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2124915) |
|
Date: February 13th, 2005 11:38 PM Author: Boyish Set That's not relevant. What does "what I do for a living" have to do with this discussion?? Even my race has nothing to do with this discussion. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2125673) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:03 AM Author: light big goyim associate Uh, yes it does, because if you have all this time to post such nonsense material on "anti-Asians this, etc." and keep reviving threads, it must tell me you're either a) unemployed b) grad student looking to BS time c) bitter with his own life. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2125880) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:08 AM Author: motley tanning salon My theory is that "hero" is either a highly motivated crusader for justice, or a impressively persistent AI bot gone haywire.
Either way, your question is still an irrelevant ad hominem. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2125945) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:12 AM Author: light big goyim associate Highly motivated crusader for justice sounds like an oxymoron. Most crusaders don't result to profane verbal attacks.
Most of us are college students. Since he's obviously out of college, what the hell he is doing here? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2125984) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:16 AM Author: motley tanning salon "Highly motivated crusader for justice sounds like an oxymoron. Most crusaders don't result to profane verbal attacks."
True, but this is not indicative of his motive(s). I do agree that it lessens his credibility.
"Most of us are college students. Since he's obviously out of college, what the hell he is doing here?"
Is he really out of college? (I have no idea, I'm an interloper from the law school board). Regardless, this is a board pertaining to the topic of college admissions and thus affirmative action is obviously fair game for discussion. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126023) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:26 AM Author: Boyish Set Excellent points quasar.
Except that profanity, which is commonly used on this board by many posters, does not lessen my credibilty. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126099) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:04 AM Author: light big goyim associate Yes, he's out of college (he claims he graduated from an Ivy League school) and therefore has bombarded this board with Anti-Asian whatever quotas nonsense and people are therefore ignoring him. He's a troll. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126409) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:14 AM Author: motley tanning salon The evidence that quotas are inherently anti-Asian American is so compelling as to enter the realm of the factual. So the message is not nonsense, but I admit that it is not conveyed in a very subtle way.
Most Asians, however, are too busy driving around BMWs to give a crap. In this respect I give "hero" credit, as he is the first "asian power" poster I have ever encountered.
For myself, I realize the inequity of the system, but all I have to say is "whatever"-- frankly this is not a topic which really riles me up.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126494) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:25 AM Author: light big goyim associate How is it so compelling when all his sources come from conservative or right-wing sites? His argument is slanted. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126618) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:30 AM Author: motley tanning salon I wouldn't consider the Post to be right-wing, nor would I ever entertain the idea that the YDN is anything but totally liberal.
Now the WSJ...
The fact, however, is that data is data. You can knock the source for being "slanted," but you must attack the data, not the source, in order to refute hero's argument. From what I see, this cannot be done. You do not even need the newspaper articles to derive this conclusion; you can crunch the data yourself from each college. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126653) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:48 AM Author: light big goyim associate The one thing I don't like about conservative institutions like Manhatttan or National Review is that they use their OWN data variables and screw them up to fit their own platform. Just like Bush preaching that Social Security hurts blacks, when in reality, it benefits blacks more so than whites because it's a progressive policy (giving more aid to those at the bottom of the economic ladder, which blacks disporportinately are under). Also, federal income taxes are progressive while state/local income taxes are more likely to be recessive.
Conservatives will want you to believe anything. These articles talk about how they 'hurt' Asians yet the main dilemma is: how can we get more blacks and hispanics readily prepare to apply to college and become productive members in society when they're so underrepresented in college? There has been COUNTLESS sociological, economic, historical literature on the subject why URMs, larger than the Asian population in this country, are behind and underrepresented in selective institutions. But conservatives want you to debunk this research as myths and yet provide no solutions to solve the crisis but continue with the status quo, self-interests and racism. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126825) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 8:33 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: ltorivia , HEED THE MESSAGE, DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER You said, >> But conservatives want you to debunk this research as myths and yet provide no solutions to solve the crisis but continue with the status quo, self-interests and racism. <<
I am neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal" and I refuse to be labeled as such. Your use of labels and stereotypes is your biggest mistake. Your are free to express your opinions, as I am free to do the same, but don't brush them aside without a credible response. You have provided very few. Instead, you yell "racism" every chance you get.
Racial preferences, by lowering the bar for blacks in admissions, do more harm than good for blacks and I have stated why. I posted the article about the study from UCLA Law, published in the Stanford Law Review, which concluded that racial preferences actually limit the number of black lawyers because of their inability to pass the Bar Exams at the same rates as whites/asians. This is also true for race preferences in American medical schools. There is much damning evidence AGAINST the use of race preferences in admissions to the elite colleges and the professional schools by admitting underprepared and academically deficient blacks. Yet, you have not presented any evidence to the contrary, except to yell racism. This reaction solves absolutely nothing in closing the racial gaps in academic achievement and the TEST SCORE GAP starting from k-12, which includes ALL tests, not only the much maligned SAT I which is being dumbed down, with subjective grading because of political correctness. The "buck stops" at the HIGH STAKES exams, such as the licenscing exams for Law and Medicine, the Bar and USMLE exams, which ALL blacks, not only preferenced blacks in AA, fail at the rate of much more than 50%, when compared to whites/asians who pass at rates of over 90%.
Some of your statements are so off base, that they don't really deserve response, but I do so, even laced with profanity, to show how weak your arguments are. You insist on using labels for everything you post, showing ALL your prejudices and biases, instead addressing the point.
I have presented much evidence and given references to prove my points and I have countered most of what you have said, even though you have avoided the OP's topic and that of Jewish "overrepresentation" in the elite colleges, yet you insist that Asian American overrrepresentation, decreases diversity, by using your knee-jerk reaction of playing the race race card. Your definition of racial diversity based soley on skin color is a synomyn for racial quota, which by definition is DISCRIMNATORY and unconstitutional.
Again, HEED THE MESSAGE, BUT DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128154) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 9:01 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Blacks have to change their culture >> There has been COUNTLESS sociological, economic, historical literature on the subject why URMs, larger than the Asian population in this country, are behind and underrepresented in selective institutions. <<
You get your house in order and attempt to solve the underlying causes for these "sociological, and economic" problems. I would also include pschycological and CULTURAL problems including the mindset of perpetual dependency on "the man" by blacks.
Race preferences in admissions to elite colleges benefitting a few academically underprepared and academically deficient affluent blacks, relative to the rest of the admitted class, does nothing to solve these problems. Show me evidence that this is otherwise. You can't. Mainly, the lower class blacks, the vast majority of blacks, are in shit's creek and are MORE ACADEMICALLY UNDERRPREPARED AND DEFICIENT. NOTHING IS BEING DONE FOR THESE BLACKS.
Race based AA is only a feelgood measure or a Band-Aid solution for the flaming guilt-ridden white liberals and the professional black victimologists who make a living off of this.
You must solve the problems at k-12 and even start at the pre-natal level and blacks must have a complete CHANGE IN THEIR CULTURE, eliminating their 90% out-of-wedlock births, dysfunctional families, with absent fathers or absent parents and child abandonment and abuse, black on black crime, drug abuse, perpetual dependency with the use of victimhood, and the lack of traditional family values and the lack of a high regard for education.
This can't be accomplished with a quick fix. Blacks must take charge of their own destiny and CHANGE THEIR CULTURE. Getting the few crums from "the man" in race preferences in admissions only will worsen the plight for blacks, especially the lower economic class blacks, widenig the gaps. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128180) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 9:50 AM Author: motley tanning salon Sorry for the late reply, I posted a lengthy reply quite a bit earlier but the computer ate it. I have a flight to catch so I will try to be as brief and concise as possible.
1. The possibility of misinterpreting data does not mean that data is being manipulated for a political end. You can crunch the data yourself if you have access to a statistical package like SAS or even Excel; in fact I highly suggest that you do so. You may be surprised by what you find.
2. Let us assume, for the purpose of absurdum reductio, that what you say is true. Let us assume that there is no discrimination against Asian Americans. The inescapable conclusion is that Asian Americans have much poorer WE, ECs, and applications than those of other ethnicities. This is preposterous, of course, and thus there must be something wrong with your premise that there is no discrimination against Asian Americans.
3. I don't truly believe that you can look at the data with an independent eye and claim that Asian Americans are not being significantly hurt by quotas. Instead, I believe that you are willing to make some sacrifices by discriminating against Asian Americans for the "greater good" of putting URMs into college. I don't claim that this is an outrageous position to take, but I am not going to agree with discriminating against one race to benefit another-- especially when there is such a great disparity in merit. This is, in effect, racism.
4. Asian Americans are not clamoring for hand-outs. They are simply asking for the same status as Jews, which is to let merit stand for merit. Practically speaking, when someone is asking to be treated as a Jew, you know that they are not demanding a great deal! There is a historical precedent for eliminating quotas, and if you support the elimination of the Jewish quota (I don't know your position on this) you must also support the elimination of the Asian American quota.
5. I am a hardcore liberal by all accounts, but I am also a hardcore quant. Several conclusions can be drawn from the data provided. Continuing with "[the] status quo, self-interests, and racism" is not among them. In fact, the exact opposite is true; in advocating one objective you also advocate these very things that you stand against. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128254) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 10:29 AM Author: Boyish Set Excellent points, quasar, even for one who was rejected by Harvard College, "inexplicably", but instead, graduated from Yale College and inhabiting the law thread on the xoxohth recently. Not bad for a self-proclaimed "interloper" here. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128352) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:31 AM Author: Boyish Set You are the one who keeps on flaming, after you had said that you were quitting, going against your own word.
Anyway, heed the message, but don't kill the messenger. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126137) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:34 AM Author: Boyish Set >> to post such nonsense material on "anti-Asians this, etc." <<
Nonsense to you is very sensible to others, such as quasar. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2126168) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 9:30 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Itorivia, read the numbers from Brown and UPenn Itorivia, read the numbers from Brown and UPenn, and look at the admission rate numbers (number of acceptances divided by number of applicants) matrix for whites, Asian Ams, blacks, and Hispanics directly from the Brown Daily Herald and the Daily Pennslyvanian, and you will find the Asian Ams have the lowest admit rates, 60 to 70% of white admit rates, Of course blacks have the highest admit rates, which are a GIVEN because of AA.
Whites do not loose, because this is accomplished at the expense of Asian Americans with lower Asian Am admit rates. Blacks gain too, but not at the expense of the white admit rate, who represnted 66% of the applicants and 66% of the acceptances. Asian Ams represented 20.3% of the applicants and 16% of the acceptances. This happened despite the fact that Asian Ams is a highly qualified group according to all admission standards and criteria used. Internal studies at Brown have shown this. I have given the name of the study.
So, who is being "selfish".
Asian Americans are the only ones getting the short end of the stick. Whites don't loose, and blacks and Hispanics gain.
You don't need rocket science to understand this and there is no way that you can dispute my conclusions that these racist quotas against Asian Americans exist. You condone them by inferring that Asian Ams are "selfish". Now you are the selfish one, including the whites who devised this admissions zero sum game. The Asian Ams are the only losers.
2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald
Brown University Class of '05
16,500 applicants
Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances
African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances
2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (www.dailypennsylvanian.com): Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvania’s Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
There is someting EVIL about this.
According to Lee Stetson, Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are "today's Jews". With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews", or to be limited by quotas.
Overrepresentation?
Jews are overrepresented by a factor of FIFTHTEEN (15) at Harvard (33% vs, 2% of the population). Jews are the most overrepresented group at Harvard and the Ivies, yet you say that Asian Ams are overrepresented. The Asian overrepresentation pales next to JEWISH OVERRREPRESENTATION, yet there is no quota or willfull policy to suppress Jewish numbers.
I am against all quotas.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128211) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 11:24 AM Author: light big goyim associate Quasar, public and private institutions use different methods in their admissions.
Public schools (most likely to hold larger undergraduate population) use numbers-driven approach. They receive so many applications that they will put more weight towards standardized tests, gpa, etc (or to be more notorious, Texas top 10% plan that screens out students not in the top 10%). An essay is optional and that can be a yay or nay on that applicant. Texas and California do not have affirmative action so they do not use race in their admissions. These states still have a problem to this day enrolling Hispanic and Black Students. Many white and black students I know prefer to attend college out-of-state just because the college environment and admissions is just too cutthroat and biased. It's easier to get into an Top 25 private school, who are just as racially, economically and socially diverse, that uses race and other holistic approaches in admissions than to get into UC-Berkeley or UCLA. (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/percent/stmnt.htm)
Private schools (especially the selective ones) use a holistic approach. They are NOT solely numbers-driven. They take into account your essay-writing skills, persona, extracurriculars and leadership qualities. They also receive applications exceeding 15,000 students on average for only 1600-2000 spots! Therefore, they have to screen A LOT OF STUDENTS of ALL RACES AND BACKGROUNDS to fit a class they feel will contribute to their diverse campus environment and mission statement.
As for the Jewish nonsense: 1. There are Jews with non-Jewish surnames. If they happen to be Jewish but the adcom doesn't know, too bad. 2. Colleges will not include a "Jewish" race box since being "Jewish" is not a race. They are white. There are many Protestant whites who do not apply to Ivy League colleges. If Jews happen to represent a large percentage of whites in the applicant pool like Asian-Americans, the admittance rate will reflect that. (Protestant Whites from Midwest America or the South are in high demand since they are 'underrepresented' and least likely to attend college.) 3. Jews also happen to be a VERY LARGE POPULATION (concentration) in New England area just like Asians are a very large population (concentration) on the West Coast. So if lots of Jews apply to these Ivy League colleges, the applicant pool will reflect that. They may want to stay closer to home or who knows what other reasons.
Where I attend school, Chicago has a reasonably large Jewish population, but not as huge as as the East Coast. It's 15% Jewish and therefore most whites on campus tend to be Protestant or Catholic (the Midwest is predominately Protestant with Catholics near urban areas.)
4. Jewish people also, unlike Asian-Americans, have a lot of political and economic clout and money to influence decisions unfortunately. That is a reality (look at what happened at Duke). As one person stated, many Asian-Americans don't really care. If they really did, you would hear more about it in the media. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128562) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 11:56 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: ltorivia485 Ther you go again with your fostering of racist stereotypes of different groups. You must judge each person as INDIVIDUALS. Period. Instead, you continue with your racist stereotypes, lumping individuals into groups.
You are the one who keeps on flaming, and you have not addressed quasar's or my points with any credibility.
Look at the Brown and UPenn admissions rates disaggregated by race and ethnicity and read quasar's and my posts.
You don't need "rocket science" to know that the anti-Asian American quotas exist. This is to minimize the lost the whites get for race based AA in giving slots to blacks. This is discrimination against Asians by whites, who make the rules. Whites don't absorb the pain and the lost of spots in the giveaway to blacks, but Asian Americans are the ones who are penalized.
Discrimnation against any group, especially the Asian Ams, no matter matter how seemingly small and politically insignificant they are, dimishes our society as a whole and this goes against the basic tenets of the constitution.
You should learn the lessons of history from the Jews, another stellar applicant group, capped by quotas.
You can continue to spew your politically correct discrimination against Asian Ams in elite college admissions, but you have yet to admit that there is actual discrimination or quotas. Start by admitting the obvious and the not so well kept secret, which the racist adcoms refuse to acknowledge, because it is damning.
"Today's Jews" in admissions are the Asian Americans
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" , by Bill Paul, published by Addison Wesley, 1995, on pages 201 and 202, the Admissions Dean of UPenn, Mr. Lee Stetson, stated that Asian Americans are "today's Jews" in admissions, inferring that Asian Ams are discrimnated against in the same manner the Jews were with exclusionary or limiting quotas or caps on their numbers. With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews" in admission and be subjected to caps and racial quotas against them. This is immoral, (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128708) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 12:11 PM Author: Boyish Set >> Private schools (especially the selective ones) use a holistic approach. They are NOT solely numbers-driven. They take into account your essay-writing skills, persona, extracurriculars and leadership qualities. <<
UC Berkeley also uses the holistic approach, with its "Comprehensive Review" of its applicants, but there is only one difference from the private elites, NO ASIAN AM QUOTA OR CAP. Hence, Asian Americans are not accepted at lower rates than whites, but are accepted at the same rates and now are 45% of UC Berkeley. The adcoms can use ANY CRITERIA or standards for admissions they wish to use, and the more stellar group will stand out. You cannot create equally stellar groups. You cannot create equal with racial quotas.
IN OTHER WORDS, WITHOUT A RACE PREFERENCE, SOME BLACKS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ADMITTED NO MATTER WHAT CRITERIA THE ADCOMS USE, NUMBERS DRIVEN OR NOT, HOLISTIC OR NOT, AND WITH ECs, ESSAYS OR NOT.
Many blacks are admitted based solely on their BLACK SKINS, or even with a lighter skin tone or hue.
Are you able to understand this point???
Asian American applicants have all these qualities of ECs, writing skills, and more as evidenced by the internal studies done at Brown and Stanford of all their applicants, when charges of discrimination agaisnt Asian Ams were leveled against them. They actually found that Asian Ams applicants have the above "holistic" qualities at an even higher level for the ADMITTED ASIAN AMERICANS than the rest of the admitted class, since they are required to meet a HIGHER STANDARD of achievement and a HIGHER CRITERIA, in order to be admitted. In other words, whites were admitted with the same holistis criteria that the Asian Ams were rejected with. Can you understand this point? If not, you are mentally deficient.
Of course, many blacks are given race preferences, which pales the other criteria and objective standards the rest of the class was admitted with, making the objective standards for admissions almost irrelevant for the race preferenced blacks.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Read the Brown and Stanford studies which I referenced on this matter before you speak again. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2128787) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:03 PM Author: Boyish Set I refer you to the book, "Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions Decisions at Stanford", !995, Stanford U. Press, by Jean H. Fetter, former Director of Admissions at Stanford. On page 97, she states, "The central fact was that while Asian Americans were being admitted to Stanford in numbers proportionally much larger than their representation in California and the U.S. population, the rate at which they had been admitted have been consistently lower than that for white students. Generally similar conditions have prevailed at other universities. Between 1982 and 1985. . . . . Asian Americans applicants to Stanford had admission rates ranging between 66 - 70% of the admission rates for whites ."
This could not be explained by academic/ non-academic ratings for Asian Americans, because the ratings were as good and in many cases, better than any other group, nor from interaction of ethnicity with other factors such as gender or geographic origin. Ms. Fetter denied that there was an implicit quota.
It was troubling because Asian Americans as a group usually have higher academic ratings (i.e. test scores and grades) and non-academic ratings with ECs, motivations, high work ethic, special talents and the overcoming of obstacles, hardships, and cultraland language differences, than all other groups on average. They have never been given preference as a targeted minority group, nor are they asking for a perference. Asian Americans were paying a penalty by having to have higher grades (the best indicator for future academic success) and higher SAT scores (at Harvard it was 65 points higher than the white mean in 1992; at Rice it was 70 points higher; at Stanford, 58 points higher; Columbia, 42 points; Williams, 36 points; Brown 36 points ; Dartmouth 49 points; Princeton 40 points; and Duke 38 points higher; Sources: Consortium on Financing Higher Education, 1992.
The SAT penalty against Asian Americans could not be explained, but there certainly seems to be an unstated or unconscious bias in the admissions process. Asian Americans do not benefit from being alumni children (this will change in this and future generations), but this alone does not explain the existence of the penalty, except for reverse discrimination towards Asian Americans compared to the white majority, not to mention any other group, via certain "goals" and/or whatever you may call it (quotas). University officials and admissions officers everywhere have been reluctant to confront this issue forthrightly and in many cases to admit that the issue even exists. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2129082) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:12 PM Author: Boyish Set ltorivia485 said, >> As one person stated, many Asian-Americans don't really care. If they really did, you would hear more about it in the media. <<
Well, this issue is politically incorrect, and many Asian Americans have taken a stand on this, but mainly to deaf ears among the white majority and the underrepresented minorities, because they have nothing to gain, but much to loose. These restrictive quotas, which were in place for Jews, came in several forms, including geographic quotas, by admitting students from places where Jews didn't live. Racial quotas are insidious and pernicious and they cause more racial strife than solving the achievement gaps for underacheiving lower class blacks, while benefitting mainly underperforming middle and upper middle class blacks (at Harvard, 2/3s are not even descendants of American slaves). This is the travesty of AA which denies poorer Asian Americans and even even poorer whites who outperform the most affluent of blacks who gain admittance with lowered standards.. That's the not so well kept secret that the politically correct refuse to admit. Many whites are in denial of this fact. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2129128) |
|
Date: February 14th, 2005 1:20 PM Author: Boyish Set No one advocated admitting students based only on GPAs and test scores. I certainly did not advocate using only "numbers or stats" for admissions. That's the biggest mistake. Again, you are sterotyping Asian American applicants by inferring that Asian American applicants are only admitted on that basis, but that is the furtest from the truth with your anecdotes in your last post. Internal studies have proven otherwise, in that Asian Americans, not only have the highest test scores and GPAs and take the most advanced courses, but also meet or exceed the other holistic criteria for admissions which include creativity, motivition, high work ethic, special talents including sports (especially non-contact sports where Asians are well represented among the 41 varsity sports at Haravard), and the overcoming of obstacles such as poverty, culture and language differences and prejudice, stereotyping and even racism from the majority population.
I think I have explained the racist sterotyping of the "one-demensional Asian stellar student with no other qualities other than music". This has no basis in fact and has been been proven FALSE with studies of whole applicant pools at Brown and Stanford. Brown admitted that there was "stereotyping" as well as "cultural" bias against Asian American applicants.
The same exact kind of biases and racist stereotyping existed against Jews pre-WW II with the anti-Jewish quota in the Ivies. Today, with the abolishment of Jewish quotas, and the elimination of the classification of "Jew" on the application form as an ethnic and religious destination, Jews have become 1/3 of Harvard and as much as 35% of UPenn. I have absolutely no problem with this for this most talented group, as long as they are admitted or rejected without racial and ethnic group preferences. This should be true for ALL ethnic, racial and religious applicant groups. Eliminate race and ethnicity in admissions. It should be race blind. The Asian American, a similar most talented group, are rejected at the highest rates simply because of their race and "overrrepresentation", not because they are not qualified under all admissions criteria used. Eliminate race, but keep all other factors for admission, and you will most assuredly see Asian Americans' numbers go up at the Ivies, even exceeding Jewish numbers.
Do you have a problem with Harvard being 35% Jewish? I do not. Do you have a problem with Harvard being 35% Asian Am or even 42% Asian Am as it is is at UC Berkeley, a MOST DIVERSE university and academically excellent, because it admits its students without using race??
The adcom can use any standards they want to use, especially holistic criteria, but eliminate race and ethnicity. All other criteria transcend race and ethnicity. Race is immutable. An Asian or white cannot be black, and vice versa. However, a black, white or Asian can be a legacy, a rich vip, a special talent, or come from any part of the country, be involved in varsity sports, or have overcome any obstacles or economic disadvantage. All these characteristics transcend race and ethnitcity.
As an example, the legacy factor has been much discussed. The little known fact is that blacks comprise of 6% of Harvard's legacy admits. These are the chidren of the black beneficiaries of race based AA since the late 1960s. These blacks have the preference of being a legacy in admissions, but they also have a racial preference from being black on admissions, giving a double preference, providing this black legacy a better than even chance of admission with lowered standards, while the rest the applicant pool is admitted at 10% rate with higher standards.
Why should a black upper-middle class legacy be admitted at a better than even chance with relatively lower standards, while the higher performing and more talented poorer Asian American, living in a Black ghetto, is rejected simply because of race/ goals/quotas/ diversity and Asian American "overrepresentation"??
This black upper-middle class black legacy had all the advantages and privileges of his affluence, with endless opportunities of travel, private or suburban schools, test prep, etc. and he is given preferential treatment admitted with lowered standards, based on race and legacy. Why is the higher performing White or Asian Am rejected?
The beneficiarcies of race based AA at Harvard are lower performing middle and upper-middle class blacks admitted with lowered standards, 2/3s of whom are not even descendants of black American slaves, but of Carribbean and African immigrants.
Why should these affluent blacks, admitted with lower standards, deserve preference over poor whites and Asian Ams, who are rejected, meeting higher standards? Why? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2129186) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 12:43 AM Author: motley tanning salon ltorivia485, thank you for your patience in continuing this discussion-- I have finally arrived at my destination and hence I am able to respond, albeit with some jet-lag.
First of all, with regard to your distinction between public and private school admissions-- this is what I pointed out earlier in my reductio argument. Are you seriously asserting that Asian Americans inherently lack writing skills, persona, extracurriculars and leadership qualities [relative to other applicants]?
You write that "to create a suitable environment adhering to their mission statement, colleges need to screen many applicants of all colors and races [paraphrased]." Of course! I absolutely agree with you. Nobody of any racial background should be passed over just because of their racial background. This is indeed also my thesis. However, if I interpret your statement correctly, what you truly mean is that in adhering to their mission statements, colleges need to *accept* applicants of all colors and races. Unfortunately, this utopian ideal cannot be obtained without sacrificing the aforementioned utopian ideal of screening applicants *regardless* of race. I submit that the latter is more important than the former; you can avoid discriminating against a certain group while still achieving your objectives by helping URMs in other ways, i.e. raising their level of merit.
I will reply to your inquiry about Jews later as I have go run some errands now. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2134350) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 12:59 AM Author: light big goyim associate I never stated that. I said that private, selective institutions use a holistic approach where they select and choose students that they feel will contribute to the campus environment - legacies, athletes, geographic affirmative action, race-based affirmative action, etc. - and are committed to diversity. Since they only have 1600-2000 spots, out of 16,000 applicants, you know not everyone will get in.
To cry out racism and unfairness sounds bleak to me. What chance do you think you will be one of the selected students when they have to deny more than they can admit? Not even perfect scores will guarantee you admission since most Harvards and Browns receive 4.0, 1500+ SAT applicants they could easily fill up as their next freshman class, but choose not to follow this method. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2134478) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:52 AM Author: Boyish Set ltorivia485 said, >> To cry out racism and unfairness sounds bleak to me. <<
It is not bleak. It is real and you can't handle the truth. Racial quotas are RACIST. I just can't believe your flawed reasoning. You just make more outrageous and ludicrous statements with every post.
ltorivia485 also said, >> What chance do you think you will be one of the selected students when they have to deny more than they can admit? Not even perfect scores will guarantee you admission since most Harvards and Browns receive 4.0, 1500+ SAT applicants they could easily fill up as their next freshman class, but choose not to follow this method. <<
So what?? What does filling the class with 1500+ scorers have to do with my argument or your argument? No one advocated to fill the class with 1500s. YOU ARE AVOIDING THE ISSUE.
You simply LACK THE DEDUCTIVE ABILITY and COGNITIVE SKILLS to understand our argument.
This does not prove anything. For example, in regards to stats, the admitted blacks, on the average have much lower stats than the rejected Whites/Asian Ams.
Admissions is all relative.
Chances of admission are all relative. Asian Americans have the lowest chance of admission while meeting the same standards and holistic criteria that whites and blacks meet. Asian Americans HAVE MUCH LESS OF A CHANCE THAN BLACKS IN ADMISSIONS when meeting the same standards and holistic criteria.
Admissions is about different admission rates for different groups. Why should a more stellar group, Asian Americans, according to all objective standards and HOLISTIC criteria used in admissions, have the lowest rates or the LOWEST CHANCES of admissions?? Why should blacks have the HIGHEST RATES or CHANCES? How is this so? The answer is THE RACIST LIMITING QUOTAS AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS.
It is racist of you to infer that Asian Ams don't have the holistic qualities for admission. Where is the proof of this? In fact, there is much proof to the contrary. You are in denial.
The Asian American admission rate is the same as the white admission rate at Berkeley, not lower than the white rate or the black rate . The reason for this is Berkeley uses no racial preferences, subjecting Asian Ams to the RACIST DE FACTO QUOTAS which the Ivies and the other elite colleges use.
Look at the admission rates or "chances" for each race from the U.of Va.. I will post them later. Blacks have thev HIGHEST CHANCE OF ADMISSION, while only having to meet the lowest standards and criteria for admissions, relative to whites/Asians.
Here is the link for statistics on reverse discrimination against whites/asians with the calculated "chance" of admission for each group, at the University of Virginia.
Click on: http://www.ceousa.org/docs/virginia2.doc
Admissions is all relative.
You can use the "holistic approach". UC Berkeley, a public school, uses it today, and there is no evidence that Asian Americans lack or have any less of the holistic criteria used in admissions. Asian American percentages have increased from 40% to 45% of the students at UC Berkeley with the use of the holistic approach. There is much evidence to the contrary. This holistic evaluation for admissions would include ECs, motivations, high work ethic, leadership qualities, essays, special talents, and athletics and the overcoming of obstacles from race, cultural differences and economic disadvantage. In fact, in internal studies, Asian Americans met the holistic criteria at a higher level in order to be admitted to Brown and Stanford (read the studies before you spew your biased and racist sterotypes about Asians). That is to say, holistically speaking, whites and blacks were admitted with the same HOLISTIC characteristics that Asian Americans were rejected with, reflected in the lower admissions rates for Asian Ams than for blacks, latinos, and especially whites. The Asian Americans are the only ones penalized in this zero-sum game of admissions. Whites don't loose or gain at the expense of the Asian Ams. Blacks/latinos gain at the expense of the Asian Americans with the use of race based AA. Whites don't loose because they make the rules, which is biased against Asian Americans.
Consider this: Even in the Utopian ideal, when ALL the applicant groups, whites, Asians, blacks, and Latinos are EQUAL according to all the standards and criteria used, Asian Ams should not have the LOWEST RATE OF ADMISIONS when compared to the rates of the other groups. Yet, blacks have THE HIGHEST RATE OF ADMISSION, when the relative quality of the pool is not on par with the rest of the applicants on the average. These blacks are admitted at the highest rates because of the color of their skin and based soley on their black race, not because they meet or surpass the standards and holistic criteria for admission. Standards and holistic criteria for admissions PALES, when race is used for admissions, making the objective standards for admissions almost TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for blacks admitted with race based AA.
In addition, Asian Americans, as a group, are required to have a higher level of academic achievement than any other group, in order to be admitted to the same school. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2135824) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 3:14 PM Author: motley tanning salon "I never stated that."
True. However, this was what you inferred in your argument. Otherwise, it would be totally superfluous and irrelevant to your argument in favor of affirmative action.
"To cry out racism and unfairness sounds bleak to me.
It is not bleak; it is provable through numerical evidence. Stating a fact is not "crying out"; it is simply stating a fact.
"What chance do you think you will be one of the selected students when they have to deny more than they can admit?"
I think that my chance would better if universities did not use quotas to cap Asian American admits. Can you deny the truth of this claim?
"Not even perfect scores will guarantee you admission since most Harvards and Browns receive 4.0, 1500+ SAT applicants they could easily fill up as their next freshman class, but choose not to follow this method."
I fail to understand your argument. Nobody is seeking a guarantee of admissions. What hero and I are contending is that Asian Americans should not be automatically *denied* a chance at admissions!
As to the Jewish "nonsense," the purpose of bringing up the (now removed) Jewish quotas was to point out that one group was unfairly discriminated against in the past. You cannot deny that Jews are a distinct group with distinct ethnic, religious, and cultural values. In the days of the Jew quotas, it would be hopelessly naive to say that Jews and "Aryans" were viewed as part of the same ethnic hierarachy. This was the whole purpose of implementing the quotas; to stop Jews from becoming the majority in colleges.
Now, the same thing is happening. The only difference between the predicament of Asian Americans and the Jews of yesteryear is that Asians do, in fact, have a different color of skin. Do you really think that this is such a huge difference?
As to your explanation of why Jews are overrepresented in college admissions, Jews are still overrepresented in college admissions *relative* to their admission rates, making your rationale irrelevant.
ltorivia485, we seem to agree on some things, and disagree on other finer points. Believe me, I want to see a diverse campus enivronment as much as you do. In fact, I was the very poster that you referenced earlier, a person who does not care very much about discrimination against an ORM which is already doing quite well. Most Asian Americans that I have met (including myself) do not care. BUT-- most Asian Americans that I know went to a top Ivy.
You and I may not care too much about the Asians who were denied admissions, but at least I give credit to hero for fighting on their behalf. You and I will never know what it is to be in their shoes. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2137618) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 3:53 PM Author: light big goyim associate STANFORD LEADS HARVARD IN ASIANS
Perhaps owing to geographical considerations (California holds the highest concentration of Asian-Americans in the United States), Harvard claims a lower percentage of Asian Americans in its undergraduate enrollment than does Stanford. Of Stanford's 6,550 undergraduates, 1,567 (24%) are Asian/Pacific Islanders compared with only 1,180 of Harvard's 6,630 (18%). There are some statistical discrepancies which, if corrected, would narrow the gap. 17% of Harvard's undergraduate population is counted in the "Other/unknown" category (as distinct from international students who are counted separately by both universities) while Stanford's count includes no such category. The "other" category is usually comprised of students who, for various reasons real or imagined, believe it contrary to their interests to state their ethnicity. In most cases they are White or Asian. Eliminating those students from the count raises the Asian percentage of Harvard's UG population to 21.7%, much closer to Stanford's 24%. Whites are 51% of Stanford's undergraduates and 42% of Harvard's. The numbers provided by both universities are based on fall 1997 enrollment. Given recent trends, the Asian percentages may be slightly higher for 1998 and 1999. International students make up 7% of Harvard's UG population and 5% of Stanford's. At Stanford, 46% of international students are from Asia compared with only 24% at Harvard. At the various professional and graduate schools that make up 64% of Harvard's combined enrollment of 18,597, the highest concentrations of Asian Americans are found in the Dental School (28%), Medical (24%), Design (18%) and Public Health (11%). The other graduate divisions are: Business (10%), Law (10%), Graduate School of Arts & Sciences (6%) and Education (6%). In absolute numbers, Asians are concentrated most heavily in the Business School (96), GSAS (93), Medical (91) and Law (88). Stanford and Harvard are estimated to fall in 10th and 11th place among the top 25 American universities in terms of the size of their Asian American enrollments. Harvard is believed to be the number 2 Asian American university outside California, just behind Columbia.
--------------- Seems like this so-called belief in "anti-Asian" quotas is a myth. Keep in mind this came from an Asian-American online magazine. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2137848) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 6:36 PM Author: Boyish Set You are really a piece of cake, because you have ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I SAID IN MY RECENT POST.
WTF do you think you are saying? Just because you posted the absolute % of Asian Americans at Harvard, does not mean there are no quotas, you half-brain imbecile..
What did I say to you before? Reread my posts, because I am getting tired of your lack of capacity to understand what I had written regarding relative admit rates for each standard and criteria used in admissions when dissaggregated by race. Asian Americans have the lowest admit rates, yet meet the standards and criteria for admissions at a much higher level than whites or blacks.
You simply lack the COGNITIVE SKILLS TO INTERPRET A SIMPLE CONCEPT. I did not realize that I was talking above your head and level of comprehension, and I gave you the benefit of a doubt. YOU DO NOT KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU IMBECILE.
It is obvious that there are anti-Asian Am quotas. Just because Stanford's Asian Am undergrads are 25% does not mean that Stanford doesn't have a quota or cap of 25%, you FUCKING IDIOT. Just because Harvard"s undergrad Asians are 17% does not mean that Harvard does not have a cap either. These numbers are stucked for a decade at the same levels, despite increasing numbers of Asian Am applicants. The 25% Asian Ams at Stanford was achieved after they responded to charges of discrimination, so Stanford raised its Asian numbers to 25% from 14%, which had remained the same for over a decade. IF it weren't for the quotas, the Asian Am numbers would EVEN BE HIGHER.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2139100) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 1:49 PM Author: motley tanning salon Give me the ratio of admissions *relative* to the number of qualified applicants, and you will have a true argument. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2145059) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:17 AM Author: Boyish Set quasar said, "I submit that the latter is more important than the former; you can avoid discriminating against a certain group while still achieving your objectives by helping URMs in other ways, i.e. raising their level of merit."
We are on the same page, quasar. I have said many times that the problems of k-12 education and the Black-White(Asian) Test Score Gap must be corrected to solve the problems of black underperformance and black underachievement. Race based AA does nothing to correct these problems and there is no evidence that it does.
Prof. John H. McWhorter said,
[Affirmative action at its inception in the late 1960s, when college administrators supposed that blacks’ low representation on campuses was simply a matter of discrimination, meant nothing more than opening the doors and providing some remedial help where needed. But these efforts to bring in qualified blacks ran up against the uncomfortably small number of such people in an America just past legalized segregation. Faced with those who were admitted, university professors, not surprisingly, proved unequal to the task of undoing the effects of 14 years of poor preparation in the basic skills necessary for college course work. Meanwhile, the triumph of the separatist belief in black America that scholastic achievement was a “white” endeavor rather than an American one further decreased the numbers of black students qualified for top schools, and it holds down their numbers to this day.]
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2135971) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 3:26 PM Author: motley tanning salon Hero, you have cited many articles in favor of this approach, but I admit that I have reached the same conclusion in a more personal and anecdotal manner.
In my university, I was allowed to enter the engineering program, regardless of my mathematics credentials, which were very poor *relative* to my engineering class (I took classes at state schools and I performed at the top of my class in these institution).
Predictably, I was totally pWned over and over during undergraduate because I simply did not have the intellectual power to perform decently. In my eyes, the faculty, by granting me admission to the curriculum, actually did me a (good-willed) disfavor. I see the same thing happening when top universities admit URMs on the basis of race alone. I always root for the underdog, but you cannot toss an average applicant into a pool of ambituous stellar intellects and expect good things to come out of it.
I grew up in Detroit and I want to see everybody get out of the ghetto. But this must happen at the source. At best, affirmative action is a band-aid. If you get pWned over and over again (as I did) and are put at the bottom of your class, this is not what I would call "advantageous." Instead, I would focus on the K-12 education, as you say. When kids in the urban centers are being suspended every day and bullet holes riddle the blackboards, I think that college admissions affirmative action is nothing more than a farce covering a deeper problem.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2137674) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 3:44 PM Author: light big goyim associate Um, I'm from Detroit. The issues that plague Detroit are much deeper and complex sociologically and historical-speaking. I'm also black. I suggest you read, "Origins of the Urban Crisis" by Thomas Sugrue on the history of Detroit's race relations and its decline post-WWII. It will give you an idea why Detroit is the way it is and all across the country in large urban centers.
Granted, I attended school in the suburbs but I live within the city of Detroit. I was never at the bottom of my class and graduated with honors at a predominately-white high school. Even at Northwestern, my grades are high and never once have I felt "inferior" to my peers. Affirmative action does have its flaw, but socioeconomic-based affirmative action doesn't do any justice when it will more likely benefit non-URMs and decrease the URM enrollment at their schools. The current system allows colleges to pick students from all backgrounds.
In order to fix urban public schools, you will have to change how state funding is formulated. It's much more expensive to run a large public school district than a smaller, suburban-size district where property tax values are the key criteria. Throwing more money at the situation won't help either. You will have to change the culture (including eradicating racism and tensions between city-suburb relations) and challenge illegal redlining practices that make living in the city such an expensive nightmare. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2137788) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 2:03 PM Author: motley tanning salon ltorivia485, your evidence-- like mine- is anecdotal. The difference in my engineering experience is that it is supported by the fact that engineering curves are numerically much lower than other liberal arts curves.
You state the following: "...I was never at the bottom of my class and graduated with honors at a predominately-white high school."
Your statement is vacuous and does not refer to the set of applicants that we were discussing. I congratulate you for your academic achievements, but we are debating over the URMs that did NOT graduate with honors (and presumably, who performed poorly on standardized tests). If every URM was more like you, I suggest that we wouldn't have this discussion, as there would in essence be no problem.
In addition, I was not referring directly to the African-American demographic in my post above; I was actually referring to Hispanics, although there was no way that you could have known this from the way I worded my post. My bad.
My story was related to my qualifications for the engineering department, and NOT to my strengths in the liberal arts, in which I was absolutely fine relative to my peers. Incidentally, it is very easy to score highly in the liberal arts.
Let's look at the empirical data. As you probably know, affirmative action can be quantified more readily in law schools than in undergrad, as law schools rely most heavily on the LSAT. In law school, nearly 50% of African-Americans graduate in the bottom 1/10th of their class. This strikes me as pretty significant, given the blind grading systems prevalent at law schools. Vanderbilt Law School, to my best knowledge, has never had a black student on their law review, the membership if which is based on blind assessement.
This does not strike me a a mere statistical fluke.
I suggest that you try TFA if you believe that college-based affirmative action will really fix the problems inherent to urban public schools.
I will check out the book that you suggested, as I am very interested in Detroit's decline through the '60s and '70s. Out of curiousity, are you going back to Detroit after graduation? When I interviewed at NU for law school, I was quite impressed by the nautical beauty of Chicago-- can't see how anyone would ever leave it for Detroit again. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2145208) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:42 PM Author: Boyish Set >> I grew up in Detroit and I want to see everybody get out of the ghetto. But this must happen at the source. At best, affirmative action is a band-aid. If you get pWned over and over again (as I did) and are put at the bottom of your class, this is not what I would call "advantageous." Instead, I would focus on the K-12 education, as you say. When kids in the urban centers are being suspended every day and bullet holes riddle the blackboards, I think that college admissions affirmative action is nothing more than a farce covering a deeper problem. <<
Many Asian Americans grew up in black ghettos. My first cousin did exactly the same and he never received race based AA, while preparing for his schooling in the back room of his parent's Chinese Hand Laundry. He went to the same k-12 schools with his black neighbors, yet he excelled and attended the Bronx High School of Science, while his brother attended Stuyvesant and their sisters attended Hunter College High School, all considered some of the best magnet high schools in the nation. From there, they attended Yale, Harvard, MIT, Wellesley, NYU Law, and the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Harvard Medical School, in the 1960s and the 1970s. Three of them are doctors and one is an attorney.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140301) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:06 PM Author: light big goyim associate Good for them. However, they don't represent the entire social realities and implications that racism and federal government policies did to subdue African-Americans. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140535) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 11:28 AM Author: Boyish Set ltorivia485, read the following on the "diversity" fraud.
Click on: http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_1_the_campus.html
Winter 2002
The Campus Diversity Fraud
John H. McWhorter
respond to article (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2136268) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 11:57 AM Author: Boyish Set According to the Hillel database,
http://www.hillel.org/hillel/Hillel_Schools_New.nsf/Schools?openform
Jews are 2.5% of the American population. They represent 30% of the undergraduates at Harvard College , 23% at Yale College and over 30% of all students at the University of Pennsylvania . The Ivy League and other elite schools have no quotas limiting Jewish students.
These same schools impose quotas limiting the number of Asian American students. Asian Americans are about 4% of the American population. Asian Americans are about 15% of the students at the Ivy League and other elite schools. At the University of California at Berkeley , Asian Americans represent 41% of undergraduates, and at Stanford, they are 25%. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2136404) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 3:21 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Blah blah blah You never told me how to celebrate Chinese New Year. Oh and I reiterate - Yr whining harms yr cause AND I do not believe yr 20 years out of the Ivy of yr choice. But I still want to know about the Chinese New Year (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2137652) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 6:05 PM Author: Boyish Set Blah Blah Blah
You missed Chinese New Year already.
Go back to lurking. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2138894) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 6:08 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Well it is YR fault then - I asked you for tips nicely - BUT NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo - you had to keep bitching about something nobodiy gives a rats ass about. Well by gones are gone - So I have 360 something days to get ready for next year - What should I do? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2138913) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 6:16 PM Author: Boyish Set Go play with yourself in the meantime.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2138966) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 6:23 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Is that what the Asians do? No wonder they can't - um er - get in ~ (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2139010) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 6:37 PM Author: Boyish Set That's what you would do. It is obvious.
I got in and so did many members of my family. I have my degrees from an illustrious Ivy. You are quite presumptuous for someone who is totally ignorant. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2139108) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 6:39 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Well if you say so - Perhaps I will try it someday - Do you have any tips for that pastime? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2139122) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:31 PM Author: Boyish Set RWC asked, "So I have 360 something days to get ready for next year - What should I do?"
Now you know what to do.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140199) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:33 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: sop that is what you do for Chinese New Years ? You wack off for 364 days and finally when you get it done you think yr seeing fireworks? No wonder they won't let you *in* (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140217) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:45 PM Author: Boyish Set No, no.
This doesn't have anything to do with anyone else or myself or "Chinese New Year".
That's WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, YOU IMBECILE, SINCE YOU ASKED!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140345) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:48 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: And you wonder why you can't get in Not only are yr responsles flat and meaningless - they are Sllllooooowwwww - Maybe you could get extened time? Though one would think that 364 days would be enough time - well at least I know know why yr eyes are so slanted. Mine would be too if I practiced yr rituals. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140369) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:50 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Hey, RWC According to the Hillel database,
http://www.hillel.org/hillel/Hillel_Schools_New.nsf/Schools?openform
Jews are 2.5% of the American population and 1.5% of the college age population is Jewish. They represent 30% of the undergraduates at Harvard College , 23% at Yale College and over 30% of all students at the University of Pennsylvania . The Ivy League and other elite schools have no quotas limiting Jewish students. Jews are OVERREPRESENTED at Harvard by a factor of fifhteen (15).
As the members of the Yale Corporation said in the 1920s, "We will be overrun by Jews, if we abolish the Jewish quota." Well, Yale dropped the Jewish quota in the 1960s, the last Ivy to do so.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140391) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:53 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: What are you anti semeitc or something? I could give a flying fuck - Besides all but one of the schools you quoted are fetid shit holes and the other only excels at one particular graduate discipline (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140418) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:58 PM Author: Boyish Set I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, but you will obviously have a problem with the Asian American numbers when they OVERRUN your ass!!
So live with it, if you can, because the JUGGERNAUT is coming to roll over your ass, and your ass is not even "a rat's ass"!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140476) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:01 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Get in line dinky dong THe Hispanics will outbreed yr type 10 to 1 - Besides there is a good reason for gated communities - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140497) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:09 PM Author: Boyish Set You are ignorant, aren't you? The second "Yellow Peri;" is coming, whether you like it or not, Hispanics or not. Asians breed selectively, not indiscriminately. Only bunny rabbits do breed indiscriminately. Asian Americans are growing at the fastest rate of any group in America, even faster than Hispanics.
It is a matter of time, a short time in the long history of China. The 2 billion will quash you like an insect. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140571) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:13 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Yeah yeah yeah All the Chinese will piss in the ocean and California will experience a tsunami - I guess the *discriminate* breeding yr referring to is why China has a ONE baby policy. - Yr sorely out of touch pinhead if you think that Asians will over take Hispanic - Furethermore - you will never get close to the gate. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140602) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:24 PM Author: light big goyim associate LOL.
Yeah the Asians are breeding alright. One baby per family! LOL (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140745) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 12:31 AM Author: Boyish Set You obviously have no comprehesion of what 2 billion people means. And that's only the Chinese. Asians will take over the whites, you idiot. You have a deluded image of yourself, consisting of grandiose delusions. That's a sign of illness. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2142487) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 6:27 AM Author: Boyish Set >> I guess the *discriminate* breeding yr referring to is why China has a ONE baby policy. - <<
You can "quess" all you want, which is what you have been doing all along. What you don't know or don't want to know is coming to roll over your little honky azz.
I am in America and we are Americans, not in China, you ignorant dumbass white devil. Asian Americans breed selectively, not indiscrimnately. Bunny rabbits breed indiscriminately. Asian American don't have 90% out-of-wedlock births, like blacks and some hispanics do. Herein lies the crux of the problem for blacks and race based AA does nothing to solve it. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143797) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:48 PM Author: Boyish Set Also, please STFU, mainly because you are filling this thread with too many posts and this makes it difficult to access and read certain posts.
So please STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140367) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 8:54 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: HE - what a GREAT idea STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!STFU!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140435) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 6:38 AM Author: Boyish Set You'll still hear from me. If you don't want to listen, that's your perogative, but this will be to your detriment, wallowing in your own ignorance. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143799) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:03 PM Author: Godawful carnelian stead faggot firefighter Jews have lots of money; why would schools want to limit them? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140510) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:03 PM Author: light big goyim associate Good point. Another topic I highlighted.
Jews have political and economic clout. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140514) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:30 PM Author: Boyish Set What's going to scare you more is that Asian Americans and Asians in the world also have tremendous economic power, unbeknownst to you, because you are ignorant. The biggest contribution made to Princeton U. in its history was made by Sir Gordan Wu, a billionaire Hong Kong businessman, knighted by the Queen of England and an alumnus of Princeton, who is the master builder of China, and of many areas in the world, such as India. He built the super highway from Hong Kong to Canton in China, financed by private funding. Gordon contributed $100 million to Princeton in the 1990s, in addition to the tens of millions he had already made to Princeton. He has a son who attended Princeton, but his daughter chose to graduate from Harvard College and the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. Gordon Wu's wife is named Lady Ivy Kwok Wu, who has her name on the Science building in the Taft School, the elite boarding prep in Conn.. Gordon Wu's brother is named Dr. Clyde Wu, a Prof. of Medicine at Wayne State U. in Detroit, and an alumnus of Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons who has contributed millions to Columbia. He just made a recent $10 million contribution to Columbia, Dr. Clyde Wu is also a member of the Board of Trustees at Columbia. There is another Chinese American on the 25 member Board of Trustees of Columbia,, named Savio Tung, who is a principle partner of the investment banking firm, Invest Corp, overseeing billions in investments. Many Chinese Americans are on the Board of Trustees of the Ivies and the elite New England boarding schools today, including Groton, Exeter, Milton, Andover, Choate, and St. Paul's, mainly because of their tremendous wealth. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Phillips Academy, Andover, is a Chinese American named Oscar Tang, who is the biggest contributor to his alma mater, Andover. He just made a $10 million contribution in their recent campaign. Oscar Tang is also an investment banker, an alumnus of Yale College and the Harvard B-School who is also a patron of the arts. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140813) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:34 PM Author: light big goyim associate OK it's official: you're a psycho. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140844) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:42 PM Author: Boyish Set It is official, you are totally ignorant! I pity you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140945) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:45 PM Author: light big goyim associate I actually pity you more. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140969) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:55 PM Author: Boyish Set Check out the names that I have given you. It is easy on the net. You can verify everthing I said as facts about some of the major Asian American contributors and leaders of their alma maters, some of the most elite New England prep schools and of the Ivies.
You are just too ignorant to make your ludicrous and ridiculous statements, stereotyping ALL Asian Americans, with your racist remarks.
Pity, in fact is too good for you. On second thought, you don't deserve it. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141058) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:58 PM Author: light big goyim associate You sound like someone who has no life. If I were to say to you that you have no balls, you would scream at me. So much for credibility and integrity on your part. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141087) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:34 PM Author: Boyish Set More ad hom attacks, simply because you are at a lost for anything credible to say.
What else is new with you?
NOTHINNNNNNNNNNNG!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141402) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:35 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Whiny twerp You are the king of Ad homs - Don't dish what you can't take - Now get yr ass on that boat and makes us all happy (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141414) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:58 PM Author: Boyish Set Hey, retarded hairy smelly half brain, RWC, I would give the honor of being king of Ad Homs to you, but you are too retarded to wear the crown. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141621) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 6:47 AM Author: Boyish Set >> Whiny twerp <<
Sounds like another idiotic WASP name. This is what WASPs call themselves. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143802) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:00 AM Author: Thriller brilliant coldplay fan Just checking the time. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143823) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:36 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: RRRrrrrrrrrite - Just like the Japanese Yr gona come over herer and buy Radio City Music Hall for ten time its worth and Peblle beach for 50 times the going price cause yr so loaded. And just like the Japanese we will take our stuff back when you default on yr loans. Shoul the USA ever default wtf are you going to do about it? Foreclose on California? Well I wish you could, but you can't even take back Tiawan. Also- genius - who is gonna buy yr beenie shit when America stops trading? You really need to think further alon than yr little wanker, You have alreay shown its inadequacy. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140871) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:38 PM Author: Boyish Set Fool, I am already here. My family was here for four generations, you ignorant FOOLLLLLLLLLLLL!!
I am a Native-Born New Yorker. Why don'y you, RWC, go back to where you came from?? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140898) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:41 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Well let see now We have you and yr family - let's pretend there are 10 peopl;e in yr family - Only 150,000,000 more of you to go till you are half the population - Or maybe yr Abacus has a power add feature? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140933) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:45 PM Author: Boyish Set Hey, RWC, remember the "Yellow Peril"?
Beware, the JUGGERNAUT IS COMING!!
Yellow Peril again. The racists, like you are coming out of the woodwork, just like insects. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2140975) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:48 PM Author: light big goyim associate Eh, I thought the "Yellow Peril" was a term used AGAINST Asians stereotypically by Europeans? Sighs.... (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141010) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:20 PM Author: Boyish Set Boy, are you stupid. You must also be confused.
Dumb and dumber!
I am using "Yellow Peril" in the same context as you would use the word "Nigga". I could have use "gook", which was used by the racist poster, RWC, or even the word "chink", which the racist, RWC, also had in his limited vocabulary. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141276) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:23 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Blurple blublrel bluberle Calling people stupid with no back up is what stupid people do - But we already knew that - Hey how come yr not packing yr bags - You have a boat to catch - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141309) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:46 PM Author: Boyish Set RWC, "yr kind" are bringing out the hoods and burning the crosses again, for more than 300 years yet!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141502) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:50 PM Author: Boyish Set Calling people "gooks" is what fucking bigoted, dumb, ignorant, and stupid white racists do.
This ain't Vietnam or Korea anymore. You are dealing with the JUGGERNAUT now. You'll get your due. Sooner than later. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141543) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 12:37 AM Author: light big goyim associate Eh, people back then used n*gg*r to be offensive.
I don't know many Asians calling each other 'Yellow Peril.' (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2142577) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 6:31 AM Author: Boyish Set I am going to use your words, "Child, you are hopeless" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143798) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:49 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Yr the racist Queenie Yr the one pressing for preferential treatenent, yr the one pressing for unfair advantage, yr the one claiming all the superiority - I merely ask you how to enjoy Chinese New Years and you go off on a diatribe about self um *mutilation* giving us all a whole new meaning of the word Gook (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141013) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:03 PM Author: Boyish Set You are the prime example of the definitive "honky". (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141128) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:05 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Well if YOU say so - even if yr stealing form another ehtnicity Hardly surprising, since yr race never got around to invening anything that was useful to them - But the good new is neither of us will have to worry about it any longer since you will be so much happier in yr motherland - buh bye - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141150) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:14 PM Author: Boyish Set You and "yr kind" were still living in caves when the Middle Kingdom flourished by inventing, innovating and reaching its heights in literature, the arts and philosophy. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141226) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:42 PM Author: Boyish Set >> Yr the one pressing for preferential treatenent, yr the one pressing for unfair advantage, yr the one claiming all the superiority - <<
This is where you lied, spun and twisted the truth. I never asked for preferential treatment, but only asked that it is not given to blacks and, of course, to whites. Never asked for any unfair advantages, but only asked that these unfair advantages not be given to whites and blacks, and never claimed "superiority", but only debunked your myth of white superiority, typical for white racists who wear hoods and burn crosses, or "yr kind". (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141462) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 7:32 AM Author: Boyish Set >> the racist Queenie <<
This also sounds like another WASP name. "Queenie", this, also, is what they call each other. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143818) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:48 PM Author: Boyish Set I am a Native-Born New Yorker. Why don'y you, RWC, go back to where you came from?? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141002) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:52 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Well *hero* if we are to go back to where we come from Then I am afraid my family has been here aproximately 300 years longer than yrs. I don't think we will get very far in recliaming the Scottish crown. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141034) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 9:58 PM Author: Boyish Set Well, my family goes back to several thousand years in its history. We have the family scrolls to prove it. Your family were retards who got here by accident, after getting lost. Fuck your 300 years. That's a piss in the ocean, you fucking hairy smelly barbarian. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141093) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:02 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: I could not agree with you more So enjoy yr slow boat back to China where you will be so much happier - and as a bonus you will not have to worry about admission to the Ivy schools that don't find you qualified in the first place. Enjoy yr superiority in Shanghi - I bid thee a bon voyage - Now that our rail roads are completed yr services are no longer required - Later - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141120) |
|
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:09 PM Author: Boyish Set Hey, retard, why don't you enjoy your CRUMBLED SCOTTISH CROWN, and the rest of the misfits, the British Royals, the ultimate example of DYSFUNCTION, if there ever was one.
Yes, the SUN does set, and it is setting on you and your Scottish kind.
I am enjoying in my country, America. Now your time is up, and go the fucking back from whence you came.
You won't need my services, because you'll be working for me. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2141183) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 12:43 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: The Campus Diversity Fraud The Campus Diversity Fraud John H. McWhorter
In September, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the crude “black bonus” in the University of Georgia’s admissions policy wasn’t what the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision meant when it allowed colleges to take “diversity” into account in admissions decisions. Let’s hope that this decision spells the beginning of the end for the “diversity” argument in college admissions. It has been, from the start, an argument shot through with duplicity and bad faith. It is a craven, disingenuous, and destructive canard, antithetical to interracial harmony and black excellence—and racist besides.
The diversity imperative now so powerful on campus arose almost by chance, springing from a remark Justice Lewis Powell made in his concurrence in the Bakke decision. Allan Bakke had charged the medical school at the University of California at Davis with discrimination for twice turning him down, despite his high grades and admissions-test scores, while routinely admitting black students with C averages and poor admissions-test scores. The court found that quota systems like Davis’s were unconstitutional, but Powell’s opinion hedged slightly, asserting that it was appropriate for schools to base their admissions decisions upon a quest for a “diverse student body.” Powell’s statement provided a justification that universities, including the University of Georgia, quickly seized upon as a cover for admitting black students with significantly lower qualifications than those of white or Asian students. Instead of ending campus affirmative action, Bakke became its license.
White guilt is a dangerous and addictive drug, and for 20-plus years the Bakke decision has supported stricken higher-education administrators in their habit. Meanwhile, the diversity shibboleth has taught a generation of young Americans that black students are more important for their presence in promotional brochure photographs than for their scholastic qualifications—an essentialization now as rife among black as among white students. This message ultimately perpetuates the very underperformance that has made the fig-leaf diversity notion necessary.
The very term “diversity” craftily overshoots the actual goal in question. Mormons, paraplegics, people from Alaska, lesbians, Ayn Randians, and poor whites exert little pull on the heartstrings of admissions committees so committed to making college campuses “look like America.” The diversity that counts is brown-skinned minorities, especially African Americans.
Affirmative action at its inception in the late 1960s, when college administrators supposed that blacks’ low representation on campuses was simply a matter of discrimination, meant nothing more than opening the doors and providing some remedial help where needed. But these efforts to bring in qualified blacks ran up against the uncomfortably small number of such people in an America just past legalized segregation. Faced with those who were admitted, university professors, not surprisingly, proved unequal to the task of undoing the effects of 14 years of poor preparation in the basic skills necessary for college course work. Meanwhile, the triumph of the separatist belief in black America that scholastic achievement was a “white” endeavor rather than an American one further decreased the numbers of black students qualified for top schools, and it holds down their numbers to this day.
As a result, though Justice Powell doubtless had intended his diversity imperative to play out as a mere thumb on the scale, giving the edge to a brown-skinned candidate where his qualifications were equal to a white-skinned one’s, brute quota systems quickly came to reign on selective campuses. After my first year at Rutgers University, where I earned my bachelor’s degree in the mid-1980s, it was painfully clear to me that the black students were generally a rung below the general preparation and performance level of the white ones. Certainly there were excellent black students—but they were exceptions rather than the rule. Even as a teenager unconcerned with social policy or admissions procedures, I couldn’t but notice that black students had gotten in under some kind of quota system.
Rutgers top brass long maintained that race was used as just one of many factors, as the Bakke decision had directed. But a few years after I graduated, a student working in the admissions office blew the whistle, revealing that black students were put into a special pool and admitted according to significantly lower criteria than other students. Nor was Rutgers unique. Similar disclosures have emerged in school after school, including the University of California, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and, most recently, the University of Georgia. Even in their pro–affirmative action manifesto, The Shape of the River, William Bowen and Derek Bok admit—and painstakingly document—that this practice has been routine in selective universities across the nation for 30 years.
At the University of California at Berkeley, where I teach, the quota system was as obvious on the ground as it had been at Rutgers in the 1980s. One older white professor, an avowed leftist, confided in me that since the early 1970s black students had done badly in his classes so often that he had found himself viewing any black student who appeared on the first day of class as a potential problem. A white remedial-composition tutor observed that he had worked with so many minority students hopelessly underprepared for Berkeley-level work that he had found himself questioning the wisdom of racial preferences, despite his leftist persuasion. Professors across the country have expressed similar views to me.
Many would dismiss such observations as bias and stereotyping. The facts are otherwise. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom note in America in Black and White that black Berkeley students who enrolled in 1988 had an average SAT score below 1,000, compared with white students’ average of over 1,300. The highest quartile of black SAT scores in this class clustered at the bottom quarter of the SAT scores of all students. The high school grade average among black students was B-plus, rather than the straight-A average required of white students. Nor was this a mere Berzerk-ley aberration: in 1992, the gap in average SAT scores between black and white entrants was 150 points at Princeton, 171 at Stanford, 218 at Dartmouth, and 271 at Rice.
Graduation rates reflect this gulf in preparation. The Thernstroms document that, of the black students who entered Berkeley in 1988, 41 percent did not graduate, while only 16 percent of their white classmates did not. Bowen and Bok report that, at 28 top universities, black students in the class of 1989 were about three times more likely to drop out than white students.
Many ascribe these higher dropout rates to financial pressures rather than to the sharp deficits in high school grades and SAT scores. But the burden of proof is upon such people to identify just why grades and scores would not correlate significantly with a student’s chances of finishing college. Few have any problem seeing a causal link here when it comes to white students.
The argument that grades and scores are irrelevant to assessing a candidate defies both logic and experience. Consider the SAT. No one would argue that a student with a perfect SAT score is only a possible good match for Harvard or that a student with an abysmal SAT score was prime Harvard material. Precisely what, then, leads to the conclusion that SAT scores in between have no predictive power? In fact, as the Thernstroms show, graduation rates for black students who started at Berkeley in 1988 closely tracked their SAT scores: students with lower SATs were correspondingly less likely to get their degrees. Bowen and Bok acknowledge that SAT scores actually overpredict black students’ college performance—that is, black students do less well than their scores would predict, not better.
Faced with such hard facts, diversity fans have asserted that leadership skills, helping to put together the high school yearbook, and spunk are as relevant to assessing a student’s scholastic potential as . . . well, how they did academically in high school or how they scored on standardized tests. But aren’t leadership skills and spunk equally prevalent among white students? Surely, blacks aren’t innately perkier than whites. College-admissions committees that cheerily emphasize such extra-academic factors in evaluating black applicants basically are saying that blacks can’t compete in the truly decisive arena: the classroom. In the name of diversity, black students find themselves patronizingly exempted from serious competition.
Can we justify this exemption from standards by saying that it leads to a larger good? Supporters of campus diversity have made three broad arguments to this effect. The first is that bending the admissions rules to ensure diversity helps foster an interracial fellowship that all students will carry with them into society after they graduate. I tried to hold on to this idea for years, but in the end it just doesn’t wash.
In truth, “diverse” college campuses are among the most racially balkanized places in America. Separate black fraternities and sororities thrive. They first emerged in the early twentieth century, when white fraternities and sororities didn’t welcome black applicants. Today, black Greek organizations are thoroughly unenthusiastic toward whites. Reinforcing this separatism, some universities host all-black graduation ceremonies—the idea, apparently, being that one’s achievement is less a human or American one than a black one. In addition, black students typically cluster in their own section of the dining hall, throw their own parties, have their own theme houses, and leave college with a separatist ideology that they often didn’t hold when they first arrived. Interracial fellowship this is not.
Nor is one likely to find much interracial camaraderie in African-American studies classes. Supporters of such classes say that they help blacks learn about their rich heritage, but in practice, they often double as exercises in stoking hatred of the White Man. At Stanford, I was a teaching assistant in a predominantly black class on Black English. In itself, the subject encompasses much more than mere street slang—extending to grammatical structure, literature, and educational issues. Yet, class discussion devolved into visceral dismissal of whites so often that one white student complained to the professor that he felt any opinions he ventured beyond genuflections to black victimhood were unwelcome—and he was right. When, in a course I taught at Berkeley on the history of black musical theater, a female white student observed that rap lyrics were misogynistic, several black students dressed her down so vehemently that they left her in tears.
Confronted with such racial enmity, white students understandably start shunning blacks. John H. Bunzel documents in Race Relations on Campus: Stanford Students Speak Out that white Stanford students who endured constant vague accusations of racism from black students often became less interested in interracial outreach than they had been as freshmen—a trend I’ve noticed on other campuses where I’ve taught or visited.
For the black student who doesn’t toe the separatist line but really seeks interracial fellowship, university life can be uncomfortable. Blacks quickly discover that black authenticity means hunkering down behind a racial barricade, glaring angrily at the symbols of white “hegemony” that supposedly surround them, and believing that they are eternal victims in their own land. Edgy conversations with other black students who question the authenticity of one’s own “blackness” become a regular feature of life. Bunzel reports that black Stanford students told him they were expected to “talk black, dress black, think black, and certainly date black.” A black student who joins a traditionally white frat or sorority will face accusations that he or she is a self-hating sellout. A black acquaintance once told me that the overwhelming hostility she met with during her college years from black students scornful of her white friendships was far worse than any white racism she experienced at the time.
Scratch the surface, it seems, and diversity really means maintaining one’s separatist missiles at the ready. After black University of California regent Ward Connerly helped launch an ultimately successful campaign to outlaw racial preferences in U-Cal admissions a few years back, some black locals formed a committee called “Citizens Against Ward Connerly.” At one event, a committee representative joked, “Ward Connerly wants the University of California to be all vanilla—and I don’t like vanilla.” She sought audience approval, but given that at least half of her listeners were white, all she got was some nervous laughter. She quickly backtracked, adding, “I like to have some mix-ins—chips, nuts.” Her initial remark, though, revealed the truth: the people so furiously committed to campus diversity aren’t interested in a color-blind America. Their real goal is to ensure that the privileges of a college education don’t distract black students from the urgent task of keeping the fires of black alienation burning.
Since the notion that diversity encourages interracial bonding is so patently false, its defenders frequently make a second, somewhat different, argument. Racial preferences in admissions, they maintain, are crucial in order to ensure, if not fellowship, then at least exposure to different ethnic and racial groups, teaching a valuable lesson about the many equally valid viewpoints in a multicultural society. This view received official imprimatur in Powell’s Bakke concurrence, where the justice asserted that universities would benefit from selecting “those students [i.e., dark-skinned minorities] who will contribute most to the robust exchange of ideas.”
Given that Bakke concerned a medical school, just how being black qualifies one to make especially vigorous observations about surgical incisions and metabolic pathways is unclear, but never mind. The real, if implicit, assumption behind the exposure idea is that whites will learn about—and learn to respect—blacks from the other side of the tracks, whom they supposedly find so alien, despicable, and threatening. But in practice, what white students often learn at a university that lets in blacks under the bar is that blacks may not be as sharp as whites. It’s difficult to imagine how even the most well-intentioned white students could have avoided such a conclusion at Rutgers when I studied there in the 1980s.
More fundamentally, the “exposure” argument rests on a falsehood: that black students typically come from disadvantaged circumstances, unfamiliar to their white classmates. In fact, at selective schools, inner-city blacks have been vanishingly rare since the late 1960s, when a handful of top schools briefly—and unsuccessfully—experimented with admitting unqualified urban blacks to see if they could cope. But among black students in the last class admitted to Berkeley under the old racial preferences regime, more than 65 percent came from households earning at least $40,000 a year; the parents of 40 percent earned at least $60,000 yearly. Of blacks admitted in 1989 to the 28 selective universities that Bowen and Bok survey, just 14 percent came from homes earning $22,000 or less.
Precisely what traits do middle-class black kids display that a white student must learn about so that he won’t wash out in the management job he starts after graduation? I’ve found that middle-class black students asked to list a few such traits usually draw a blank. Even if many blacks from the ‘hood did show up at selective schools, however, why would learning about their cultural traits be vital to white students’ education? In African-American studies courses on the same campuses, blacks regularly—and rightly—decry the stereotype that all African Americans are poor. Surely a firsthand, four-year tutorial in the vibrancy of ghetto life would simply reinforce that stereotype. Poverty is a tragedy, not a life-style.
If neither the hope for greater interracial harmony nor the idea of whites learning from blacks justifies diversity policies, there is, finally, the moral argument that blacks deserve compensation for their tragic history. Centuries of disenfranchisement and segregation bar most blacks from really qualifying for top schools, affirmative action’s defenders charge, so it’s the right thing to do to let them in through the back door. “How, without racial preferences, can we make up for the fact that whites benefited from socially ingrained preferences for centuries?” furiously asked one black man at a talk I gave recently. Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer, reversing his longtime opposition to race-based admissions, claims that whites “owe” blacks due to past injustices. For all their sincerity, however, people like Glazer don’t understand that this tit-for-tat defense of racial preferences bars the only path that can lead us beyond our racial dilemmas.
It’s indisputable that historical disenfranchisement has left many blacks ill equipped to compete even when ladders to success beckon, as they do today—partly because of the economic and social obstacles to achievement that disadvantaged status entails and, even more, because long-term oppression helped create a black cultural identity opposed to mainstream success. For blacks to rise to the top, they must learn new skills and cultivate new attitudes. Those who’ve grown up under conditions that don’t offer direct paths to accomplishment have the task—unfair, but hardly limited to blacks—of discovering the knack of turning lemons into lemonade, as oppressed groups in America have done for centuries. A group that believes that mainstream achievement is inauthentic will have to refashion its self-conception if it is ever to get ahead in the only society it will ever call home.
Lowered standards are antithetical to both of these vital goals. A fundamental tenet of economics and psychology is that most people will do their best only if they have the incentive to do so. Lowered standards have robbed blacks of that incentive. One can only learn to ride a bicycle by mastering the subtle muscular poise of the endeavor oneself; as long as the training wheels remain on, one isn’t really riding the bike.
The point here isn’t moral but logical: black students will only reach their full potential if the affirmative-action safety net is withdrawn and they’re required to strive for excellence. Perhaps the most sobering reality black Americans face today is that even our tragic history cannot exempt us from this hard truth of the human condition. Asian students have never had the illusion that there was any path up other than showing their best stuff, come hell or high water, which is why so many of them excel. Students, though, who daily hear the message, “You only have to do pretty well to get into a top school” will—a few naturally gifted stars excepted—only do pretty well. To elevate diversity over true excellence condemns black students to mediocrity and is, quite simply, racist.
To call today’s university administrations racist may seem a bit strong. Yet what else should we make of university officials’ apparent belief that blacks are the only group in American history incapable of overcoming social and historical obstacles? So troubled is University of California president Richard Atkinson by the fall in black and Hispanic admissions to his flagship Berkeley and UCLA campuses since the end of racial preferences in the system that he has proposed eliminating the SAT from admissions requirements altogether.
Never mind that, after the overturning of preferences, black admissions fell only on these two top campuses, rising at several other UC schools; and that the University of California is now trying diligently to prepare minority students in middle and high schools throughout the state to submit competitive dossiers to UC. Atkinson is so skeptical that the new race-blind regime will ever bear fruit that he doesn’t consider it worth waiting to see what might happen over time. Instead, all he sees is the “re-segregation” that black and Latino faculty and administrators and their white fellow travelers warned about when the battle over preferences was raging. Implicitly, he seems to think that Berkeley and UCLA are the only California colleges worth attending, so that black students who don’t get into them have no choice but to fail.
This is offensive nonsense. Sure, over the past few years, many black kids who would have gone to Berkeley under the old system now attend UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, or other solid second-rank schools. But so what? They’re much more likely to thrive on these campuses than if they found themselves, unprepared, at legendarily demanding Berkeley and UCLA. And isn’t Atkinson’s conviction that the new system re-creates the era of Orville Faubus strangely dismissive of California’s non-elite state schools for the man entrusted with their stewardship?
Equally important, under the new race-blind system, black students know that they are as qualified academically as other students on campus. Armed with a confidence based on reality, black students will be more comfortable in white company and less likely to compensate for feelings of inferiority by retreating to their own section of the dining hall.
Affirmative-action supporters retort that under-qualified black students must be admitted to top schools, because the prestige of such institutions and the connections one makes attending them are essential to success in later life. This claim doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Journalist James Fallows notes in a recent piece in The Atlantic that “the four richest people in America, all of whom made rather than inherited their wealth, are a dropout from Harvard, a dropout from the University of Illinois, a dropout from Washington State University, and a graduate of the University of Nebraska.” Top universities, he adds, rarely show up on the résumés of congressmen, Nobel laureates, industry leaders, and even U.S. presidents. As for blacks, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom show that, of today’s African-American congressmen, army officers, recent Ph.D.s, MacArthur Foundation genius-award winners, and top business officials, only a tiny sliver attended elite colleges.
None of this is rocket science. Every college administrator knows that diversity is really a code word for “at least 5 percent black faces with a good sprinkling of Latinos,” and that this outcome is attainable only through quotas. Racial preferences continue to receive protection from the diversity fig leaf. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon. The question, “Aren’t you in favor of diversity?” today means, “Don’t you like black people?”—and nothing chills most thinking white Americans more than the fear of being deemed racist. At the same time, many blacks cheer preferences under the misguided impression that racism is the only possible cause of unequal performance, and thus they remain blind to the importance of the perseverance and individual initiative that will truly succeed in fostering black excellence.
A university culture truly committed to erasing the sins of the past would champion diversity in its true sense, infusing its discourse on race with a range of views wider than variations on victimhood. Since 1978, diversity has served as a flimsy and evasive perversion of justice. It has helped no one, least of all black students. It’s high time we swept it into the dustbin of history.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2142649) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 1:52 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Hero:
I have two questions for you:
First: What do you do for a living? You say you graduated from an Ivy, so I would like to know who are we arguing with in terms of accomplishments (if it's not insulting to you to be asked, of course.)
Second: Please spell out what your ideal Ivy League class would be in numbers, according to your current knowledge of qualified students by race.
(e.g. XX% Asian, XX% whites, etc.)
If you want your point to be heard, please answer my questions.
Note: If you could PLEASE limit your answer to two small paragraphs, it would be appreciated. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143203) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 6:40 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Hey, Tricky (sly and disingenuous) In one sentence, your questions are totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Like it or not, heard or not, I have made my points.
Read Prof. John H. McWhorter's essay, "The Campus Diversity Fraud" carefully, which eloquently states my views on racial diversity or racial quotas.
Why don't you calculate the Jewish numbers? I have given you the Hillel web site for your reference.
According to the Hillel database,
http://www.hillel.org/hillel/Hillel_Schools_New.nsf/Schools?openform
Jews are 2.5% of the American population and 1.5% of the American college age population. They represent over 30% of the undergraduates at Harvard College , 23% at Yale College and over 30% of all students at the University of Pennsylvania . The Ivy League and other elite schools have no quotas limiting Jewish students.
These same schools impose quotas limiting the number of Asian American students. Asian Americans are about 4% of the American population. Asian Americans are about 15% of the students at the Ivy League and other elite schools. At the University of California at Berkeley , Asian Americans represent 41% of undergraduates, and at Stanford, they are 25%. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143800) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:17 AM Author: light big goyim associate Way to go in avoiding the questions. It's not all about relevancy. The fact you continue to ignore those questions tells me you have nothing legitimate or truthful to say. Trick, this guy does nothing for a living! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143840) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:42 AM Author: Boyish Set Quite relevant. The Asian American quota has replaced the Jewish quota in the Ivies and the elite colleges.
You have not addressed this at all with a credible response.
If you don't have anything relevant to say, please stop wasting space on this tread, because it is difficult to access, while you wallow in self-pity, victimology, and mindless BS in general. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143879) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 7:34 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Blacks have to change their culture ltorivia said, >> There has been COUNTLESS sociological, economic, historical literature on the subject why URMs, larger than the Asian population in this country, are behind and underrepresented in selective institutions. <<
You get your house in order and attempt to solve the underlying causes for these "sociological, and economic" problems. I would also include psychological and CULTURAL problems including the mindset of perpetual dependency on "the man" by blacks.
Race preferences in admissions to elite colleges benefitting a few academically underprepared and academically deficient affluent blacks, relative to the rest of the admitted class, does nothing to solve these problems. Show me evidence that this is otherwise. You can't. Mainly, the lower class blacks, the vast majority of blacks, are in shit's creek and are MORE ACADEMICALLY UNDERRPREPARED AND DEFICIENT. NOTHING IS BEING DONE FOR THESE BLACKS.
Race based AA is only a feelgood measure or a Band-Aid solution for the flaming guilt-ridden white liberals and the professional black victimologists who make a living off of this.
You must solve the problems at k-12 and even start at the pre-natal level and blacks must have a complete CHANGE IN THEIR CULTURE, eliminating their 90% out-of-wedlock births, dysfunctional families, with absent fathers or absent parents and child abandonment and abuse, black on black crime, drug abuse, perpetual dependency with the use of victimhood, and the lack of traditional family values and the lack of a high regard for education.
This can't be accomplished with a quick fix. Blacks must take charge of their own destiny and CHANGE THEIR CULTURE. Getting the few crums from "the man" in race preferences in admissions only will worsen the plight for blacks, especially the lower economic class blacks, widenig the gaps.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143819) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:27 AM Author: light big goyim associate This has to be the most racist post I've ever read on this board. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143853) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:29 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: What would one expect? He surely has serious issues of incompetancy and inadequacy. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143859) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:38 AM Author: Boyish Set RWC, you are "twerping" again. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143869) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:40 AM Author: light big goyim associate Since when was the out-of-wedlock rate 90%? That means that every black child hero encounters must come from a single-parent, dysfunctional family which is TOTALLY FALSE. That sentence alone told me how racist 'hero' is. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143872) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:47 AM Author: Boyish Set I didn't say "all blacks". This figure is true for many black ghetto communities in America.
Out-of-wedlock births for all blacks are closer to 60% or the majority of black births.
Check the Harlem Hospital Dept. of Obstetrics stats on births in Harlem, NYC. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143882) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:52 AM Author: light big goyim associate I don't live in Harlem nor does Harlem represent the entire nation or largest cities in America.
Source please on "all blacks in black ghetto communities?" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143887) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:04 AM Author: Boyish Set I didn't say "all blacks" in the entire nation. This figure is true for many black ghetto communities in America of which Harlem may be representative of.
Check out the Harlem Hospital Dept. of Obstetrics stats. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143904) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:10 AM Author: light big goyim associate I don't live in Harlem nor does Harlem represent the entire nation or largest cities in America.
Source please on "all blacks in black ghetto communities?"
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143915) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:31 AM Author: Boyish Set "all blacks in black ghetto communities?"
No one said this.
You are getting Dumb and Dumber again, and you are getting besides yourself, "child".
Again, I didn't say "all blacks".
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143955) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 8:37 AM Author: Boyish Set There you go with the knee-jerk reaction again, using the race card, yelling RACISM.. You have run out of miles on your card. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143868) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:01 AM Author: light big goyim associate Metro Detroit sprawl separates blacks, jobs
Region is among the worst in the nation; lack of public transportation cited.
Jobs in Metro Detroit sprawl across the suburbs more than in just about any other part of the country, a phenomenon that has cut off many African-Americans from potential employers, according to a study released Tuesday.
The Brookings Institution report is the latest to trace the social cost of jobs that increasingly are spread broadly over the suburbs, instead of being concentrated in one or two areas. It found that in Metro Detroit and other regions where jobs sprawl most, black households were less likely to be in the same neighborhood as workplaces. That separation in Metro Detroit is among the worst in the country.
"Unregulated employment growth has social and economic consequences. It means black households are isolated from employment opportunities," said the study's author, Michael A. Stoll, a public policy professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
The situation in Metro Detroit is compounded by an unreliable mass transit system that makes it more difficult for the poor to reach jobs in far-flung suburbs. "People become victims of that, and they're stuck in their neighborhood," said Agostinho Fernandes, who runs the Gleaners Community Food Bank.
The toll is particularly severe for blacks, the study found. The findings build on a report last year by Wayne State University showing job sprawl slowed progress toward breaking down racial segregation.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/me tro/0502/16/A01-91713.htm (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143900) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:05 AM Author: Boyish Set So what? What does this have to do with the OP's topic, "Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies"?
Is this another one of your lamed-brain excuses for your racist quotas? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143908) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:10 AM Author: light big goyim associate Maybe the reason why the blacks you see on the streets being "lazy" and "shiftless" is that they don't have access to higher-paying jobs due to redlining, residential segregation and urban sprawl. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143919) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:27 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Again, So what? What does this have to do with the OP's topic, "Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies"?
Is this another one of your lamed-brain excuses for your racist quotas?
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143950) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:33 AM Author: Boyish Set Change can't be accomplished with a quick fix. Blacks must take charge of their own destiny and CHANGE THEIR CULTURE. Getting the few crums from "the man" in race preferences in admissions only will worsen the plight for blacks, especially the lower economic class blacks, widenig the gaps.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143967) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 9:40 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Message for Itorivia NYCFan expressing his politically incorrect views on the CC
NYCFan said the following in his post on the CC:
01-21-2005, 01:06 AM #16
Byerly (aka NYCFan)
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 854 Don't worry about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The silent majority who cheered when Summers maneuvered that fraud, Cornel West, out of town, then smiled understandingly when Summers said he was "sorry", will be equally understanding now.
Summers does not accept the status quo in academia, which is hardline leftist, wedded to victimology, quotas, and politically correct nostrums of all kinds.
He is a threat to the faculty barons and tenure-protected ayatollahs who are used to running things their way.
Larry Summers is a REAL Liberal, to be sure, but takes no guff from the ideologues, unlike his bovine predecessor who never once stood up to them.
He is a much-needed breath of fresh air in academia.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2143979) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:26 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Date: February 16th, 2005 6:40 AM Author: hero Subject: Hey, Tricky (sly and disingenuous)
"In one sentence, your questions are totally irrelevant to the discussion. Like it or not, heard or not, I have made my points. Read Prof. John H. McWhorter's essay, "The Campus Diversity Fraud" carefully, which eloquently states my views on racial diversity or racial quotas."
So you refuse to say what you do for a living.
You also refuse to mention what a college campus would be like if your ideas were put into practice.
What, are you afraid of showing us what would be the tangible result of your ideas put into practice?
Based on the way you have argued your case, I believe you'd be thrown out of court. Actually, you'd be forcibly removed from the scene based on your ad hom attacks and the way you have refused to state a point when asked.
How do you expect to convince ANYONE who is not Asian to see your point if you treat everyone like garbage and you refuse to answer any questions?
You know, you are digging your own grave. Just like Scott Peterson dug his own grave and earned himself a death sentence merely by his behavior. Your method is headed for failure.
If you think that stating the results of limiting quotas and gettting rid od AA are not important, then you have no point. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2144348) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:33 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Hey, Tricky (sly, sneaky, and disingenuous) >> How do you expect to convince ANYONE who is not Asian to see your point if you treat everyone like garbage and you refuse to answer any questions? <<
You know what?
You have no case for your side of the argument. Period.
Reread my posts. I have made my points and you can't handle the truth.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2144373) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:33 AM Author: light big goyim associate Your posts do us no service.
Now answer the questions.
We have not taken you literally. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2144376) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:36 AM Author: Boyish Set That's a laugh, coming from you of all people. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2144388) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:14 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Well, a great part of your "points" consists of responses to my inquiries where your main point is "fucking racist, retard, you're full of shit, ignoramus, blah blah blah."
If that is what you call "your point", then I guess we don't belong in this conversation, and you'd be better off finding people willing to stoop down to your level.
So, if you have half a brain and can actually state your point (instead of citing 300 pages of "Asian Pride & Accomplishments" accompanied by 25 personal attacks to those who dare ask for further information on your points..) Then answer this question, IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS:
What type of diversity will an undergraduate class composed of 70% Asians provide to its students? Just like your own quote attested: Asians at Ivy Leagues would NOT want to be in a class where there is a majority of Asians, and where they miss the opportunity to meet and learn from people from other cultures and backgrounds.
Tell me EXACTLY what diversity is it that you're talking about. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF SPELLING OUT YOUR POINTS, OR YOU WILL BACK OFF AGAIN, LIKE USUAL? And if you "already stated your points", well, DO IT AGAIN, in here, and in BRIEF.
Yes, I know you said "Asians have talents in every single field and discipline, they aren't all about studying, and they would win hands down in admissions because they excell at everything.."
Ok, I agree Asians aren't all about studying, although it seems like there is a tendency among them. If you have a link showing the Asian diversification into ALL FIELDS OF STUDY, that would be helpful.
Yet, EVERY RACE has people who go into all disciplines, so it really is nothing special that Asians go into different disciplines. All races do that, the only difference is that other races don't hit the top stats because their culture DOES NOT emphasize such diligence.
I want you to tell me WHAT EXACTLY Asians contribute to the classroom besides their 1550, 4.0's, and ECs.
Tell me the difference between holding a seminar at an Ivy League Institution, where the students involved are: [Option (a)] 2 African Americans, 6 Caucasians, 3 Hispanics and 8 Asians.
As opposed to [Option (b)]: 14 Asians and 4 Caucasians.
Tell me the difference, the benefits of your ideal class, and whether people in general would be happier and more fulfilled in option (b). Apparently Asians themselves would be unhappy, like one Korean girl said, stating that she would NOT attend a school with an Asian majority "even if it were Harvard." (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2151204) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:52 AM Author: motley tanning salon TrickMaster, I took the liberty of writing a long response to your questions (although they were not directed at me) but my computer crashed, so I must apologize in advance for the succinct answers.
"What type of diversity will an undergraduate class composed of 70% Asians provide to its students?"
The same kind of diversity that will be provided with a campus demographic consisting of 70% Caucasians. Incidentally, this is what is happening right now, and I don't have a problem with it.
"...the only difference is that other races don't hit the top stats because their culture DOES NOT emphasize such diligence. "
Fair enough. So why should Asian-Americans be punished for their diligence?
"I want you to tell me WHAT EXACTLY Asians contribute to the classroom besides their 1550, 4.0's, and ECs."
They contribute the same as African-Americans, Caucasians, or any other race with comparable academic credentials.
"Tell me the difference between holding a seminar at an Ivy League Institution, where the students involved are: [Option (a)] 2 African Americans, 6 Caucasians, 3 Hispanics and 8 Asians...as opposed to [Option (b)]: 14 Asians and 4 Caucasians."
Personally I wouldn't care, as long as the other students had sufficient credentials. In fact I have had seminars that you have described in both scenarios; I barely even noticed.
"Apparently Asians themselves would be unhappy, like one Korean girl said, stating that she would NOT attend a school with an Asian majority..."
If you have statistics to demonstrate that this desire for racial diversity outweighs the negatives associated with discriminating against Asian-Americans, than you have a good case.
I suggest that this is the main point that has been largely ignored throughout the discussion. The question at stake is: does the pursit of diversity warrant discrimination against a racial group? Your questions (that you demand that hero address) assume that the answer to this question is "yes," but I have yet to see substantial reasoning or proof why this is the case.
In short:
1. We agree that Asian Americans face discrimination under a quota system
2. We agree that in the short-term future (barring any significant cultural shifts) that discriminating against Asian Americans is one way to increase racial diversity on college campuses.
We must therefore decide whether 2) is an ethical policy or not, before answering your inquiries. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2151465) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 7:51 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Hey Tricky See my post below titled, "Comment on the Jews, RWC and Tricky, both RACIST HYPOCRITES" (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2151966) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 8:35 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Subject: Hey Ding a ling ling - You may NOT have it BOTH ways You cannot whine that Asians are unfairly discriminated against and at the same time maintain that they are OVERREPRESENTED when it suits yr purposes. Take yr case to SCOTUS MORON - You have all the high powered friends that can do this (so you claim) and when they laugh their assess off at you you can go tell the marines. OK yr turn, you have NO arguments, therefore, insult away. I understand yr frustration. Being exposed as a jack ass can not sit well with you.
*well represented and OVERRREPRESENTED in every field of graduate and professional study.* (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2151980) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 8:52 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Comment on the Jews, RWC and Tricky, both RACIST HYPOCRITES The racist hypocrite Tricky said, "Ok, I agree Asians aren't all about studying, although it seems like there is a tendency among them. If you have a link showing the Asian diversification into ALL FIELDS OF STUDY, that would be helpful."
Read this to your heart's content, you racist HYPOCRITE. You have yet to answer my question about the 33% of Jews at Harvard or the 25% of Jews in the Ivies, for 2% of the America population. You obviously have no problems with the Jewish numbers, yet you continually harp against Asian Americans, a most diverse group, both in interests and even in skin color, and ethnic differences, including students from backgrounds of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), South East Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma), East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) and the Pacific Islanders (Hawaii, Samoa, Figi,) and the Philippines. You are ignorant, because you lump Asian Americans into one monolithic group, without any basis. As you can see, they are NOT one monolithic group, racially or ethnically. South Asians are racially Caucasions, and they are included in the Asian American group in admissions and demographically in the US Census, giving the total of 4% Asian Americans in America.
Asian Americans represent one of the most DIVERSE groups in America, both RACIALLY and ETHNICALLY, in addition to having the most diverse interests in EVERY field of study offered in the university, as evidenced at both Harvard and UC Berkeley, supporting the best and highest ranked Depts. in the world, in the best schools in the world, with their scholarship and achievements, yet you demean and trivialize them with your racism against Asian Americans.
That is exactly what the Jews did, but they are almost completely racially white as a group in these schools.
BTW, the vast majority of Hispanics or Latinos are racilly white or Caucasion.
Comment on the Jews, IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS. You DON'T have TESTICLES. You won't comment, because of your hypocrisy and your racist stereotypes against ALL Asian Americans.
You just don't know how weak your arguments are, yet you condone DISCRIMNATION against Asian Americans, and not the Jews in admissions. Jews are the most OVERREPRESENTED group in the Ivies and the elite colleges by more than a factor of FIFHTEEN (15), at 33% of Harvard for their 1.5% of the Jewish college age population.
I have no problems with the Jewish numbers. There no caps for Jews. I am against all racial, ethnic and religious quotas in admissions to elite schools. I have a MAJOR problem with the caps on Asian American numbers.
Tricky, you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population. If it were, 90% of the Jews in the Ivies TODAY would not have been admitted, and the Jewish quota would remain intact,. If it were, the Ivies would be 87% Christian and not 25% Jewish. Yet, you insist on an anti-Asian American quota limiting Asian Americans, simply because of perceived racial overrpresentation. You represent the lowest form of racist hypocrisy and your arguments are WEAK and would not hold water in any reasonable discourse.
Unfortunately, your statements about the narrowly focused Asian American is simply not true. The FACTS ARE NOT SKEWED. You are misinformed by the ones who would have you believe the Asian stereotype of the math and science, who is one dimensional, with no other interests. This is simply NOT TRUE and represents a RACIST STEREOTYPE fostered by the white mass media, the adcoms and the proponents for racial diversity, not diversity of interests.
Yes, Asian Americans are in math, the phyiscal and applied sciences and engineering way out of proportion to their percentage in the population, but they are also into most other fields in numbers and percentages also, out of proportion to their percentages in the American population.
You are perpetuating stereotypes of Asian Americans. Asian Americans are not only into math and science where they excel, but they are into every field of endeavor known and also are well represented and OVERRREPRESENTED in every field of graduate and professional study.
Asian Americans ARE NOT NARROWLY FOCUSED! There is no evidence for this. They have diverse interests, from the arts and humanities, philosophy, sociology, the peforming and visual arts, music, architecture, and religion to math and science.
Not all Asian Americans go into math and science. That is a stereotype, with no basis in fact.
Asian Americans go into every field of study, including law, business, architecture, divinity, journalism, education, the arts and humanities, government, dentistry and medicine at Harvard and at every university in the country, including UC BBerkeley, where Asian Americans are 45% of the students with DIVERSE interests.
ASIAN AMERICANS ARE ONLY 4% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION.
The top law schools in America are 10% Asian American. The top business schools are over 10% Asian American.
At Harvard, the Law School is 10% Asian American, the Business School is 11% Asian American, the Divinity School is 5% Asian American, the School of Education is 9% Asian American, the School of Government is 7% Asian American, the School of Public Health is 10% Asian American, the School of Design is 14% Asian American, the Dental School is 27% Asian American, the Medical School is 24% Asian American, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is 8% Asian American.
These numbers are generally true in all the Ivies and most of the elite colleges.
As you can see, Asian Americans do not study math, science and engineering only.
Check out the Harvard University Fact Book for Degree Student Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity: Fall 2002.
http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/budget/factbook/current_facts/enroll_ethnicity_7.html
Asian Americans with diverse interests are screwed in the admissions game at Harvard, the Ivies and the elite colleges by being required to meet a higher standard of achievement for admissions, not because they are only interested in math and science, but because there ARE TOO MANY EXCELLENT AND STELLAR ASIANS, WITH VERY DIVERSE INTERESTS, way out of proportion to their percentages in the American population. This goes against Harvard's goals for racial and ethnic diversity, and therefore Harvard imposes racial goals/quotas against Asian Americans, limiting their numbers they admit. They don't do this against the Jews, a similar most highly qualified group with diverse interests. If Harvard didn't impose caps on Asian Americans, the numbers of Asian Americans at Harvard College would even be HIGHER than the 16% that Harvard admits. I mean, who wants to see Harvard at a higher percentage of Asian Americans, if they were actually admitted commensurate with their qualifications or at at the same level of achievement as the rest of the class? A racist hypocrite such as Tricky would not want Asian Americans at at higher percentage, yet Jews are 33% of Harvard and 25% of the Ivies and many of the elite colleges for merely 2% of the American population.
Again Tricky, comment on the Jews, IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS. You DON'T have TESTICLES. You won't comment, because of your hypocrisy and your racist stereotypes against ALL Asian Americans. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2151992) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 8:54 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: RWC, RACIST HYPOCRITE Tricky and RWC, you both are racist hypocrites, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population. If it were, 90% of the Jews in the Ivies TODAY would not have been admitted, and the Jewish quota would remain intact,. If it were, the Ivies would be 87% Christian and not 25% Jewish. Yet, you insist on an anti-Asian American quota limiting Asian Americans, simply because of perceived racial overrpresentation. You represent the lowest form of racist hypocrisy and your arguments are WEAK and would not hold water in any reasonable discourse.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2151995) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 9:15 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican You describe yrself - The following may be of assistance to you
Many patients who come to our Centers have had a lifelong history of psychological problems. In our experience, these patients benefit most from an expansion of cognitive therapy developed by Dr. Young, called Schema Therapy.
Schema Therapy was developed specifically for patients with chronic or long-term difficulties. Some of these problems include feelings of inadequacy, loneliness, strong dependency on others, problems choosing appropriate partners, and being out of touch with one's feelings.
In comparison with standard cognitive therapy, schema therapy probes more deeply into the childhood origins of distorted thinking, relies more on imagery and emotive techniques, and is somewhat longer- term. Cognitive therapy is often combined with schema therapy, when agreed upon jointly by the therapist and patient. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152002) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:05 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Hey, RWC, you have much IMPACTED STOOL >> You describe yrself - The following may be of assistance to you <<
This has nothing to do with the racial and ethnic enginneering, because it didn't work in Nazi Germany or in Bosnia, where all the peoples weer WHITE, but of DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS PERSAUSIONS.
C'mon, RWC, you completely avoided my points about Jews, a religious and ethnic minority, in the same manner that Hispanics are classified as mainly a white etnicity. They were the objects of bigotry and hatred as other racial and ethnic minorities, including Asian Americans.
You completely avoided the question about "diversity" with Harvard at 33% Jewish or even in the recent past when Columbia was as much as 70% Jewish, because it was the first Ivy to abolish the quorta. Columbia has even more Jews than Harvard today. I don't have a problem with the Jewish numbers and you don't either, but you have a problem with the Asian Am numbers in the Ivies, simply because you are a bigoted and prejudice HYPOCRITE.
Just listen to yourself spewing racist epithets. RWC, let us hear more. You are only proving my point.
You should have your barium enema to flush the shit out of you. You must be in pain, with IMPACTED STOOL, exacerbating your bigoted behaviour. Not good for you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152082) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:08 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican The only one spewing racial epitaths is you. I answered yr question. You merely need to read it - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152088) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:01 AM Author: Boyish Set You are halluncinating again! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152274) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 9:06 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: RWC , you are a racist hypocrite
RWC, you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population. If it were, 90% of the Jews in the Ivies TODAY would not have been admitted, and the Jewish quota would remain intact,. If it were, the Ivies would be 87% Christian and not 25% Jewish. Yet, you insist on an anti-Asian American quota limiting Asian Americans, simply because of perceived racial overrpresentation. You represent the lowest form of racist hypocrisy and your arguments are WEAK and would not hold water in any reasonable discourse.
Are the Ivies and Harvard less diverse because Jews are tne most OVERRERPRESENTED group with 33% Jews and OVERRREPRESENTED by a factor of FIFHTEEN (15)?
If you think so, as you do with Harvard at 16% Asian Americans, then you should imose caps on Jews, as you do with asian Americans.
Is Harvard less diverse, if a Humanities or a Liberal Arts class has 10 Jews, 10 Asians and 2 blacks, and 3 Whites?? I don't think so, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Of course, Jews are more than double the the Asians at Harvard, because of caps on Asian Ams.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2151999) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 9:06 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Subject: Racist hypocrites? So basically, your definition of diversity in a college campus is "Different interests among the students in the student body."
If we have students interested in engineering, law, medicine, chemistry and psychology, we have a fully diverse student body?
For that matter, whites, Hispanics and blacks also have great diversity (of interests.)
I take it that Asians don't give a crap about cultural diversity, or diversity of backgrounds and life experiences. Just like you and the other Asian poster above have mentioned: A class with a mix of Asians, Caucasians, African Americans and Hispanics would feel just the exact same as if the class were only Asians and Caucasians, as long as all students had comparable academic credentials. Well, too bad this goes against the mission statement of ALL of the Ivy Leagues and most top universities. The top of the world can't be wrong on that. Especially when the Asians in the top agree with them.
And BTW, notice how that the stereotype that Asians care about nothing but study and ivies keeps getting reinforced by Asians themselves. Q's definition of "diversity" is: "comparable academic credentials" which implies that the rest of the cultural, personal, life experience, hardships and unusual circumstances of other students are completely worthless to Asians, since all that matters are the "comparable academic credentials." "Asians care about study and nothing else" A myth? Or reality?
That is, unfortunately, the opposite of most Ivy Leagues mission statements. If admissions were race blind, Asians would still get rejected based on their one-dimensional personalities. I'm not talking about math and science, but about the fact that their lives are equal: Study-study-study. Limited social interactions and contributions to society other than their studies.
Personally, I can have a much better conversation with an African American, than with an Asian. All the Asians I know are either extremely quiet, or always doing work. I never get anything from them. I know this brilliant Asian kid who graduated from Yale. Most of the conversation I had with him, he went like "uhh, well hmmm, yeah, Yale.." And I'm not being racist, I'm only stating my experience with Asians. They are one-dimensional in the sense that social values don't have an important role in their lives, all that matters is academic achievement. And well, hello! the US is a very social society. A total cultural clash with China.
Another problem is one of language and culture.
"Merit" in Chinese =/= "Merit" in English. In China, perfect stats = success. In the US, perfect stats only gets you to the second round in the admission process. In the US, "quietness" and "shyness" have negative connotations. In China, shy or quiet can be translated into "well-behaved," which is a positive attribute. Opposite US values.
So what, you would like to end up with a class of 70% Asians, 10% Internationals (including International Asians) and the rest Caucasians? That couldn't last too long before racism in the US grew out of proportion, having even lowerr percentages of URMs in top schools, and climbing down into higher levels of discrimination and lower employment prospects. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152000) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 9:23 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Tricky- you avoided my question about JEWS. Again you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population. If it were, 90% of the Jews in the Ivies TODAY would not have been admitted, and the Jewish quota would remain intact,. If it were, the Ivies would be 87% Christian and not 25% Jewish. Yet, you insist on an anti-Asian American quota limiting Asian Americans, simply because of perceived racial overrpresentation. You represent the lowest form of racist hypocrisy and your arguments are WEAK and would not hold water in any reasonable discourse.
Are the Ivies and Harvard less diverse because Jews are tne most OVERRERPRESENTED group with 33% Jews and OVERRREPRESENTED by a factor of FIFHTEEN (15)?
If you think so, as you do with Harvard at 16% Asian Americans, then you should impose caps on Jews, as you do with Asian Americans.
Is Harvard less diverse, if a Humanities or a Liberal Arts class has 10 Jews, 10 Asians and 2 blacks, and 3 Whites?? I don't think so, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Of course, Jews are more than double the the Asians at Harvard, because of caps on Asian Ams.
Again you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population.
If it were, 90% of the Jews would not be in the Ivies!!
Again you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population.
If it were, 90% of the Jews would not be in the Ivies!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152006) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 9:30 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Jews are a religion - NOT - a race -
Yr argument if it were meaningful could be applied to Christians. Fact is You will say ANYTHING and do ANYTHING to get yr way. And when reality is thrust upon you; you have a temper tantrum. Well go rite ahead - It is rather amusing to watch ~ (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152010) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 9:43 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: RWC, Jews were considered less than white and less than human Really?
Latinos are not a race also, but an ethnicity, and mostly Christian, and yet you would include them in your definition of "diversity". The majority of them are white. Just turn on cable-TV and watch the "Latino or Hispanic" stations. I thought I was in Europe, watching lily white people speaking Spanish.
I never heard of the term "Latino" except in the USA, used only for purposes of racial and ethnic engineering in race preferences for admissions.
Jews are also mostly white, a religious minority and ethnicity. They were not only considered something other than white, but less than human in the history of Ivy admissions, by the WASPs.
Yes, RWC, you are a racist hypocrite. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152037) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:02 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican *WERE* being the operative word - The same can be said about Blacks. Fortunately, we as a people and a nation have progressed. As for yr hair splitting between the definition of ethnicity v race - It is an Augustinian debate and belongs on the shelf with the *Angels on a Pin* argument. FACT - Judaism is a RELIGION. There are white jews, Black jews, African Jews, Russian Jews, European Jew, and even ASIAN Jews. And as you most likely know - yr race has long been known as the Jews of the Orient. So it would appear that once again yr whiny argument has been totally destroyed. Now Do yr New Year's Dragon temper tantrum dance for us and lash out. I will go for the popcorn. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152080) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:13 AM Author: Boyish Set This does not negate my points of argument, which you sheepishly and conveniently EVADED, by writing them off as not counting in your proportional matrix, which is just RACIST and BIGOTED. Jews, at 15 times OVERREPRESENTATION and no caps, is OK with you, yet Asian Americans without caps and much lower representation is NOT OK with you.
Smells like hypocrisy of a bigot against Asian Am. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it is a duck. If it looks like a bigot, walks like a bigot, then it is a bigot and the bigot is RWC. And a hypocrite also. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152106) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:17 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican POUT all you want - Hurl slander all you wish - RELIGION is NOT a factor in IVY admissions. PERIOD end of the discussion (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152114) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:33 AM Author: Boyish Set Yet white HISPANICS are a factor in admissions. You are a hypocrite. What's the matter? Tougue tied, you hypocrite.
There are many Hispanics who are ethnic Chinese. The largest ethnic Chinese community in North American was in Batista's Cuba. They were in the middle class there running their busineses before Castro and they came to America with the takeover of Cuba. There are many Latinos who are ethnic Asian in Peru, Brazil, Argentinia, etc. Yet these Latinos of Asian descent are not considered "Latinos" By definition the Ivies uses, they are, but they are considered Asian in the admissions game of racial and ethnic enginerring. The Hispanics from Cuba of Chinese ethnicity are not considered "latino" in admissions.
You just can't see through the demented hypocrisy, and ludicrous nature of this race and ethnic based AA policy, which you support.
Did you have your enema to remove your IMPACTED STOOL YET?? It has affected your thinking processes, if you had any at all to begin with. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152159) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:38 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fantasies are not an argument - It is quite clear that you are exceedingly ignorant about the process. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152180) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:52 AM Author: Boyish Set C,mon, you can respond better than this, but now I seriously doubt.
You have ben EXPOSED for your HYPOCRISY and your racist attitudes against anyone Asian American, or Asian. Please continue with some more of your racist epithets against Asian Americans and especially Chinese Americans. I heard all them before, but please come with some new ones, because you are SO BORING!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152247) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:46 AM Author: Boyish Set Jews are a religion and also an ethnicity. White Latinos are an ethnicity who are predominately Christian. White Latinos are RACIALLY WHITE.
If you use "diversity" as a factor, Jews contribute to "diversity" as well as Latinos, yet you conveniently discount the Jews because they are white, but include the white Latinos in this diversity matrix, because you are a hypocrite in accepting the OVERREPRESENTATION OF JEWS by a factor of 15, and calling for caps on Asian Americans.
Smells like racial bigotry and racial discrimnation on your part, RWC. In fact, it stinks like it!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152216) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:57 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Rite - Perhaps you could apply the above diatribe to the Abayudaya and explain how you reconcile yr tripe. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152260) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:59 AM Author: Boyish Set C'mon, you can respond better than this, but now I seriously doubt it.
You have ben EXPOSED for your HYPOCRISY and your racist attitudes against anyone Asian American, or Asian. Please continue with some more of your racist epithets against Asian Americans and especially Chinese Americans. I heard all them before, but please come with some new ones, because you are SO BORING!!
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152271) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:05 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Rite - You cannot respond so you divert. Fine by me ding a ling ling. Fact is I don't really care - I can get into whatever school I wish and I have gotten into all the schools of my choice. I am sorry yr progeny wasn't found capable - I am sure yr social group looks down their collective noses at you. You should have spent yr time making more of yrself so yr brats would have been welcomed with open arms. But I suppose it is to late for that now. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152290) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:12 AM Author: Boyish Set Thorazine is the drug of choice for you, given in doses that would even quiet a horse, because you certainly need it.
You could add Stelazine also. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152320) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:14 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Yr out of date on yr pharmocology sweetheart - Just another straw of evidence inre yr credibility to add to the broken camels back. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152327) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:16 AM Author: Boyish Set Yes, Thorazine is the drug of choice for you.
You could add the Haldol (haliperidol) and Valium (diazepam) later to quiet this sucker, RWC. He is getting out of touch with reality, the definitive sign for a psychotic episode, which almost defines the symptoms for hallucinations. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152333) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:24 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican No one uses Haldol anymore fool - The side effects are too severe and Valium is for Valley wives - The half life is much to short. Ambien and Klonopin are much more useful and you should think seriously about changing yr Rx. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152359) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: Boyish Set Again, I'll bet RWC is Jewish, thinking that he is a WASP in his delusions and hallucinations.
I'll bet my money on it.
Forget about the stock market, I'll take bets on RWC's Jewish heritage. I could set up a thread on the xoxohth as RWC had suggested. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152413) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:06 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Suit yrself - We haven't had a *RWC is a ________* for at least 10 minutes now. You should put the stuff about liberalism in there for a double or nothing bonus. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152569) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:12 PM Author: Boyish Set Hello, RWC,
You have not told me what they used on you when you were commited with your hallucinations the last time. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152599) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:15 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican WELL by all means share it with the community along with yr other black mail. What are you not only a dumb ass but a pussy as well. Go ahead shit for brains - see if I care. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152620) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: Boyish Set Now, now.
You last statement reflects another LOW point for you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152665) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:29 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Well include it in yr expose - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152675) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:25 PM Author: Boyish Set >> You should put the stuff about liberalism in there for a double or nothing bonus. <,
More BS. It does not take a "rocket scientist" to realize that you are "liberal" when this serves your own selfish needs, such as maintaining the Jewish numbers and white numbers at the expense of Asian Americans. The black numbers are a given, so you are a racist "liberal" hypocrite who would screw over the Asian Americans to maintain the white numbers. Whites don't loose spaces when blacks are given spaces via racial prefrences. This is clear and I have posted the stats from Brown, Harvard, and Stanford to verify this. When the politically correct situation does not serve your needs, you are a racist "conservative". Therefore, you are a racist HYPOCRITE.
I don't give a "flying fuck" (your words) what you label yourself. This is irrelevant. You are a racist HYPOCRITE based on what you said and your racist statements. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152660) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Well - what are you waiting for? Do you intend to stall until yr able to grow a set of balls? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152666) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:44 PM Author: Boyish Set You would just love it, wouldn't you? More inflation of ego and grandiose delusions for you. If you think it takes "balls" to start a thread on you, you are more than deluded. You do not know the meaning of "balls", which you have a fascination with, because you lack balls.
RWC, GET THIS THROUGH BALL-LESS SELF, IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY BALLS TO START A THREAD ON YOU.
Your don't know the definition of "balls", you racist hypocrite.
You have nothing else credible to say re: White Jews in the Ivies, or their ethnicity at 33% of Harvard and how this INCREASES THE RACIAL and ETHNIC DIVERSITY of the Ivies, yet you, a racist hypocrite, state that more Asian numbers will DECREASE the diversity. Also, you infer that having more WHITE LATINOS, will increase racial diversity.
You simply contradict yourself. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152747) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:49 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican OK so yr a pussy. It was NOT my idea Mr. Rockey Scientist. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152780) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:02 PM Author: Boyish Set
Now, now. You are sinking even lower. You now bring to the table, the word, "pussy", a new development.
You would not know what a "pussy" is if it were in front of your ulgy face, because you have not had any "pussy" for as far back as you can remember, lurking on xoxhth for years.. Tell me about "pussy".
Apparently, pussies and weenies are your fascinations and fantasies, since you always bring these words to your posts. Being deprived of either a "pussy" or a "weenie" will do this to you, RWC. You are seriously ill, mainly because you haven't any "pussies" or for that matter, "weenies". You certainly don't have any of your own.
You don't know anything about "pussies", "weenies" and "balls" (your own words), because you don't have anyone of them. You would not know what they are if they were in front of eyeballs.
RWC, YOU WISH YOU HAD PUSSY. IT HAS BEEN SO LONG SINCE YOU SAW ONE, THAT YOUR WEENIE HAS DRIED UP. THAT IS, IF YOU HAD A WEENIE TO BEGIN WITH. I DOUBT IT. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152853) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:50 PM Author: Boyish Set I'll still bet RWC is Jewish, thinking that he is a WASP in his delusions and hallucinations. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152787) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 12:52 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Put it to the test - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152798) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:04 PM Author: Boyish Set I already did. You won't deny it, proving that you are.
BTW, my best friends are Jewish, except you, (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152859) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:08 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Not a hair on yr ass nor a brain cell in yr head. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152873) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:09 PM Author: Boyish Set BTW, my best friends are Jewish, except you, (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152877) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:12 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Include that in yr expose. Yr fans are waiting with bated breath - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152893) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:16 PM Author: Boyish Set Now, now:
RWC, YOU WISH YOU HAD PUSSY. IT HAS BEEN SO LONG SINCE YOU SAW ONE, THAT YOUR WEENIE HAS DRIED UP. THAT IS, IF YOU HAD A WEENIE TO BEGIN WITH. I DOUBT IT. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152910) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:14 PM Author: Boyish Set BTW, I ALMOST FORGOT ABOUT YOUR "SWEET CHEEKS", WHICH YOU SO APTLY DESCRIBED, BECAUSE I HAD NO IDEA.
ANYWAY, UP YOUR "SWEET CHEEKS" INTO YOUR AZZHOLE.
I think your scheduled bariun enema will accomplish this very nicely. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152901) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:16 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152908) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:18 PM Author: Boyish Set Apparently you can't even read now, sinking even lower. You really need help.
Again, for RWC's edification:
You would not know what a "pussy" is if it were in front of your ulgy face, because you have not had any "pussy" for as far back as you can remember, lurking on xoxhth for years.. Tell me about "pussy".
Apparently, pussies and weenies are your fascinations and fantasies, since you always bring these words to your posts. Being deprived of either a "pussy" or a "weenie" will do this to you, RWC. You are seriously ill, mainly because you haven't any "pussies" or for that matter, "weenies". You certainly don't have any of your own.
You don't know anything about "pussies", "weenies" and "balls" (your own words), because you don't have anyone of them. You would not know what they are if they were in front of eyeballs.
RWC, YOU WISH YOU HAD PUSSY. IT HAS BEEN SO LONG SINCE YOU SAW ONE, THAT YOUR WEENIE HAS DRIED UP. THAT IS, IF YOU HAD A WEENIE TO BEGIN WITH. I DOUBT IT.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152926) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:19 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152934) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:24 PM Author: Boyish Set You would not know what a "pussy" is if it were in front of your ulgy face, because you have not had any "pussy" for as far back as you can remember, lurking on xoxhth for years.. Tell me about "pussy".
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152953) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:25 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152958) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:35 PM Author: Boyish Set Only one word now?
You are definely LOOSING IT!!
You would not know what a "pussy" is if it were in front of your ulgy face, because you have not had any "pussy" for as far back as you can remember, lurking on xoxhth for years.. Tell me about "pussy". (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153019) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:37 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153026) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:41 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153382) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:43 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: hero
Again, I'll bet RWC is Jewish, thinking that he is a WASP in his delusions and hallucinations.
I'll bet my money on it.
Forget about the stock market, I'll take bets on RWC's Jewish heritage. I could set up a thread on the xoxohth as RWC had suggested.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153394) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:37 PM Author: Boyish Set I need to remind RWC again.
BTW, I ALMOST FORGOT ABOUT YOUR "SWEET CHEEKS", WHICH YOU SO APTLY DESCRIBED, BECAUSE I HAD NO IDEA.
ANYWAY, UP YOUR "SWEET CHEEKS" INTO YOUR AZZHOLE.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153031) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:38 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153037) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:45 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and called RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks". He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is,
A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153070) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:49 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican
Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153084) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:51 PM Author: Boyish Set Hey RWC
Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153097) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:53 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153107) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:09 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and called RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks". He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is,
A RACIST HYPOCRITE
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153195) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:11 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153200) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:12 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153210) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 8:26 AM Author: Boyish Set Now you are talking about hairs on your ass. You obviously have plently of hairs on your ass, because you are a hairy smelly white racist hypocrite , you hirsuite animal. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159200) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:28 AM Author: Boyish Set You tell me what they used on you when you were commited with your hallucinations the last time.
Thorazine would subdue a horse and certainly would TAKE YOU OUT. I mean Thorazine would OUT YOU!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152381) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:42 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153390) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 9:32 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Yes, Tricky, RACIST HYPOCRITE >> Another problem is one of language and culture.
"Merit" in Chinese =/= "Merit" in English.
In China, perfect stats = success. In the US, perfect stats only gets you to the second round in the admission process.
In the US, "quietness" and "shyness" have negative connotations.
In China, shy or quiet can be translated into "well-behaved," which is a positive attribute.
Opposite US values. <<
Asian Americans do not live live in China, nor in Asia and the vast majority of Asian Am applicants were not even born in Asia.
You are dealing in racist stereotypes, which you insist on doing for only Asian Am applicants. You already have been proven wrong on this. You are so ignorant.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152013) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:21 AM Author: Boyish Set >> Personally, I can have a much better conversation with an African American, than with an Asian. All the Asians I know are either extremely quiet, or always doing work. I never get anything from them. I know this brilliant Asian kid who graduated from Yale. Most of the conversation I had with him, he went like "uhh, well hmmm, yeah, Yale.." And I'm not being racist, I'm only stating my experience with Asians. They are one-dimensional in the sense that social values don't have an important role in their lives, all that matters is academic achievement. And well, hello! the US is a very social society. A total cultural clash with China. <<
This comment really does not deserve a response, but I do so just to highlight how ludicrous it is. I won't waste much time in responding.
This is a TYPICAL RACIST STEREOTYPE which Tricky insists on using. Keep doing this. You have been doing this with many of your posts and yet you do not have the BALLS OR TESTICLES to answer my queries regarding Jews. You have dug an even deeper hole for yourself.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152123) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:25 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican GEODON is the first atypical available in both an intramuscular and oral formulation. It’s now possible to treat patients in both the ER and outpatient setting with the same atypical antipsychotic. With GEODON you have the power to restore your patients’ potential, regardless of their stage of illness. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152135) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:35 AM Author: Boyish Set You are HALLUCINATING now.
Reading the PDR would not help you.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152165) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:57 AM Author: Boyish Set I'll bet RWC is Jewish, thinking that he is a WASP in his delusions and hallucinations. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152263) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 10:58 AM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Rite - I am also a flaming left wing radical - according to you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152270) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:03 AM Author: Boyish Set C'mon, you can respond better than this, but now I seriously doubt it.
You have been EXPOSED for your HYPOCRISY and your racist attitudes against anyone Asian American, or Asian. Please continue with some more of your racist epithets against Asian Americans and especially Chinese Americans. I heard all them before, but please come with some new ones, because you are SO BORING!!
You are HALLUCINATING again!
You need an intramuscular dose of good old THORAZINE. A huge dose!!
You will be discarded soon, or "divorced" as you had said, because you are wasting my time. Why don't you come up with more racist epithets. The "slow boat to China" is overused and worn out.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152282) |
|
Date: February 16th, 2005 11:40 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: NYCFan said >> The silent majority who cheered when Summers maneuvered that fraud, Cornel West, out of town, then smiled understandingly when Summers said he was "sorry", will be equally understanding now....Summers does not accept the status quo in academia, which is hardline leftist, wedded to victimology, quotas, and politically correct nostrums of all kinds. <<
I whole heartedly agree with NYCFan and Summers' position which is relevant to all of academia. He, a non-Asian and a Jew, at least had the backbone to stand up for his beliefs. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2144407) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:28 PM Author: Tantric nursing home I'm Asian-American, and I still got into Ivies. On one hand, my spot goes to someone less deserving academically. On another hand, my spot goes to someone more deserving in the context of equality, compassion, and overcoming oppression. I don't mind too much, because even if I were rejected I would probably go to a great college. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2152977) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:28 PM Author: light big goyim associate Thank you. You speak the most sense on this board. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153625) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 9:33 AM Author: dun hunting ground spot again there is a contradiction in the words you speak.
"don't mind too much, because even if I were rejected I would probably go to a great college. "-indeed implying that it doesn't matter, however why would it matter for one group and not the other in regards of which college they would go to.
when you say equality, and comparison those are worthless words,define them if oyu can. How much of a boost should "overcoming oppression" get and how does one overcome oppression. By what, scoring higher academically speaking or by sheer virtue of existing? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159284) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 11:28 AM Author: Tantric nursing home You are an idiot. Not only did I count at least 20 fucking grammatical errors in that response, you used logical fallacies that would make your prof vomit in law school. That shows how much of an idiot you are. Just fucking try to answer your own questions. You sort of know the answers yourself, but you deny them to assure yourself that your misguided views and sense of insecurity aren't what they really are. I don't tolerate fucking skepticists and those that employ circular thinking (do you even know what that is?!?!?). Don't make me slap you with my prestigious cock until your skin turns blue.
HTH (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2165551) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 6:27 PM Author: dun hunting ground spot oh man you don't take criticism form idiots well do you. I think your the one using circular logic which is why i asked you the questions. How does one overcome when academically speaking scores haven't budge an inch in 50 years? There might be a problem with this trickle down AA theory don't you think? fyi i don't have a law prof (har har it shows, I'll save you the trouble). "Don't make me slap you with my prestigious cock until your skin turns blue"-...i hope for your sake i never meet you. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2167314) |
|
Date: February 20th, 2005 2:27 PM Author: Tantric nursing home "oh man you don't take criticism form idiots well do you." There are five grammatical errors in that sentence alone. I pretty much don't give a shit what you (or idiots for that matter) think, aside from the chance to pwn you like I've pwned everybody else on this board. I'll answer your questions this time around to show what kind of idiot you really are. I'm also doing this perhaps to minimize some of your insecurities. Honestly, if you were confidant about getting into Ivies, you wouldn't be bitching about AA. The fact that you are shows your lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. "indeed implying that it doesn't matter, however why would it matter for one group and not the other in regards of which college they would go to." Your "implication" or analytical skills suck. It affects or IMPACTS (if that's too big of a word for you, I apologize) one group a lot more than the other. That's not to say that it matters for one group and not the other. As admission committees apply AA, Asians that would get normally into HYPS without AA applied would attend WAS instead; and in my home state, Asians would attend UCLA instead of Berkeley. Notice how this isn't much of a downgrade. Without AA, African-Americans who would get into HYPS with AA would attend UCLA or Berkeley instead, clearly a big difference. As the UCs now have dropped AA, African-American enrollment has dropped, and this has no doubt led many African-Americans to pursue instead a shitty Cal State education, which seems quite fitting for you. The answer's obvious. "when you say equality, and comparison those are worthless words,define them if oyu can. How much of a boost should "overcoming oppression" get and how does one overcome oppression. By what, scoring higher academically speaking or by sheer virtue of existing?" LOL. Minimization arguments are the worst kind in debates. Also, your language critique sucks. I could piss out a language critique more coherent than that. If you can't even define equality and compassion or understand their values (go read a dictionary and some good books), you truly are a moron and a pathetic liff with no life. I'm not going to sit around arguing definitions with you. As I said before, I really don't care how much a boost some situations should get, mainly because I am STILL confidant about getting into the schools I want. Shoot, I'll be okay if African-Americans get less of a boost as they do now. "I think your the one using circular logic which is why i asked you the questions." You don't even know what circular logic is, you moron. You're the one embracing or using the absence or questioning of institutions as arguments. "How does one overcome when academically speaking scores haven't budge an inch in 50 years?" Are you a fucking idiot? It's well-known that African-American scores have increased over the years, especially after recentering the SAT scores. "There might be a problem with this trickle down AA theory don't you think?" Yes, there are problems with the "trickle down AA theory," but it's more beneficial than not. Just look at the surging wages of African-American women. "i hope for your sake i never meet you." I'm at Pomona College at times. Come here now, and you just might see my wrestling/jiu jitsu moves. I warn you. If I feel like I'm in danger, you might see a barrel of a gun, you fucking loser-fucker.
PWNED!!! I spent 10 minutes on this, which is way too much time than what you deserve. Go suck on a dog's cock to relieve your insecurities.
HTH (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2171513) |
|
Date: February 21st, 2005 10:04 AM Author: dun hunting ground spot "Honestly, if you were confidant about getting into Ivies, you wouldn't be bitching about AA. The fact that you are shows your lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."-regardless of my confidence level, i think i have the right to complain when i think people are given an unfair advantage over me or even someone I don't know for that matter.
"I'm at Pomona College at times. Come here now, and you just might see my wrestling/jiu jitsu moves. I warn you. If I feel like I'm in danger, you might see a barrel of a gun, you fucking loser-fucker."-I wouldn't worry about me putting you in danger over this. only when you try to smack me with your penis.
"Without AA, African-Americans who would get into HYPS with AA would attend UCLA or Berkeley instead, clearly a big difference. As the UCs now have dropped AA, African-American enrollment has dropped, and this has no doubt led many African-Americans to pursue instead a shitty Cal State education, which seems quite fitting for you. The answer's obvious."-I was referring to the big picture. If you send people who are not as prepared into college, they will benefit less than someone who was more prepared (and therefore society would lose out) . As evidence to this i site what has happened in Michigan law school, where urm who where admitted with the lowest stats were in the bottom of the class.
"Are you a fucking idiot? It's well-known that African-American scores have increased over the years, especially after recentering the SAT scores." I would argue that the resulting increase of the scores where the result of having an easier test. I think every "group" got an increase. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2176549) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:46 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Hey RWC Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153075) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:52 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153101) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:59 PM Author: Boyish Set Fac ut gaudeam- RWC IS A RACIST HYOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153136) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:00 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153142) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:10 PM Author: Boyish Set Fac ut gaudeam- RWC IS A RACIST HYOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153198) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:11 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153202) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:12 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153213) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:14 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153226) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:15 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153233) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:13 PM Author: Boyish Set Date: February 4th, 2005 2:17 AM Author: hero Subject: Mr. Stetson, Admiss. Dean,UPenn, said- "Asians are the new Jews"
Mr. Crowley, you hit the nail on the head, by saying the following:
[it's legit. it's not new either.
a certain ivy used to have a jew cap that was a fixed percentage.
columbia and certain ivies have asian caps. they're more fucked by AA than any other group. and no i'm not asian, so it's not sour grapes. these schools are loathe to release SAT scores by race though, so i can't provide much more than anecdotal data. certain engineering schools are so heavily asian they practically have AA for caucasians.
the asian stuy kids get extra fucked because the school ranks or at least did a few years ago. any elite HS with any sense doesn't rank.
once some of these colleges get sued they're toast. i'm utterly certain they're using quotas. look how similar the ethnic demographic is at ALL the ivy league schools. it screams quotas. you think 13% African-american at every ivy is a coincidence?
old habits die hard.]
The school you referred to with a SPECIFIED % cap on Jews was Yale, although all the Ivies had quotas at one time or another. Yale was the last Ivy to abolish the Jewish quota when R. Inslee Clark, became Dean of Admissions at Yale, under President Kingman Brewster in the 1960s, despite the complaints from the Yale Corporation, which included William F. Buckley, Jr.
"For Jews at Yale, a struggle to be accepted," 4/4/01 Yale Daily News
BY ELYSSA FOLK, YDN Staff Reporter
No one knows exactly how many Jewish students will be admitted to Yale
this year -- because the days of mandatory quotas on Jewish students
admitted to Yale are over.
But for the majority of Yale's history, the number of Jews enrolled was
a very important figure. Administrators, faculty and alumni wanted to
preserve the preparatory-school, Christian student tradition at Yale. Through
unofficial quotas, Yale administrators kept the Jewish student
population to a minimum.
It was not until the 1960s, under the leadership of Dean of Admissions
R. Inslee Clark, that the quota was lifted, and the student body was drawn
from wider sources such as public schools and urban areas.
And after centuries of being marginalized and excluded from social
organizations, the Jewish presence on campus was finally accepted.
Early years
The first Jewish student to attend Yale came to the University more
than 100 years after the school's establishment in 1701.
Moses Simon holds the distinction of being the first Jewish Yale
student, followed 17 years later by Judah Benjamin, who never graduated because
his father could not afford the tuition.
Benjamin's departure from Yale is symbolic of the problems of the
student body. Admission was largely given to preparatory school students from
wealthy families. But Jews were rarely among that group.
By the 1890s, strong feelings of anti-Semitism pervaded the campus and
were reflected in the denial of Jews to any of the fraternities and secret
societies.
In Dan Oren's book, "Joining the Club -- A History of Jews and Yale,"
Oren writes that the members of Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity put on an
anti-Semitic play as part of their initiation process for the pledges.
Ironically, although Yale administrators sought to protect the student
body from Jewish infiltration, the city of New Haven had a strong
working-class Jewish community had that settled in the city in the 19th century.
Limitation of numbers
Admissions was a sticky subject for Yale at the turn of the 20th
century. Latin proficiency was a requirement for admission, although this would
not jibe well with the nation's public school curriculum.
Complaints from public school parents resulted in fairer admissions to
the University during the early 1920s, and Jews seized upon this openness
to attend Yale, applying in droves. But fear mounted quickly among
conservative Yale alumni that Yale might turn into Columbia University, where about
half of the students were Jewish at this time.
The Jewish students, though few in number, thrived academically. In the
1920s their grades were higher on average than non-Jews, and they received
more academic awards. This bothered Yale administrators tremendously,
according to Oren's book.
By 1923, the University had decided to limit the number of Jews entering
Yale, but not overtly. By declaring a post-World War I housing shortage,
administrators could tighten the reigns on admissions without having to
publicly deny Jews acceptance.
"It was clearly a veiled attempt to limit the number of Jews at Yale,"
Oren said. "I was particularly struck by a University committed to light and
truth having a secret policy."
Those Jews that were accepted in to Yale still faced discrimination from
social clubs and were forced to live together.
Judaism goes underground
The Hillel foundation, an organization centered on Jewish life, came to
Yale in 1941.
But until the 1990s, the Hillel was housed underground in the basements
of various buildings on Old Campus.
"If you came to the Yale campus and asked if there were Jews here,
you'd have no above ground sign that there were," said James Ponet '68, now a
rabbi at the Slifka Center.
But it wasn't only the physical structures that were underground. Many
Jews tried to hide their identities to gain acceptance to extracurricular
organizations.
Daniel Rose '51 said he remembers trying to solicit money for the
United Jewish Appeal from the Jewish students at Yale -- he had gotten a list
of all the Jewish students from the admissions office -- and being turned
down because the students were denying being Jewish.
"I am not of that persuasion. My parents are, but I am not," Rose said was a
typical response from the students he called.
But it wasn't the chilly response he received that disturbed Rose the most.
Rather it was the list of Jewish students that the admissions office compiled.
"My recollection is that there were 1,100 students in my class, and there
were exactly 110 names on that list," Rose said. He said this list convinced
him how precise the quota system was.
The Jewish presence was also missing from the academic curriculum.
"The role of the Jew in western civilization was not a factor to be
studied," Ponet said. "I remember studying the Crusades, and there was zero
mention of Jews."
The days of R. Inslee Clark
After World War II, there was a rising sentiment at Yale that there should be
a shift in admissions criteria to emphasize intellectual capacity rather than
social status. Oren said the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther
King Jr. and the launch of Sputnik spurred this change.
"Americans were shocked that our educational system was not up to
snuff," Oren said.
University administrators convoked the Doob committee, a faculty group
that was to review Yale's housing policy. But psychology professor Leonard
Doob, who served as chairman of the committee, took his mandate one step
further -- to explore the fairness of the admissions policy.
But Yale's doors did not truly open until the leadership of R. Inslee Clark
'57, the public high school graduate who became dean of admissions
under President Kingman Brewster. Clark increased the admissions staff,
recruited public school students and urged Yale's peer institutions to end
preferential treatment for prep school males. Clark decided that the University
had favored too many other factors rather than scholarship to admit students.
The influx of Jewish students that followed these new policies was not received
well by everyone. Many alumni exaggerated the numbers, claiming that Jews were
in the majority.
In 1985, President A. Bartlett Giammati did away with the formal records that
the admissions office used to keep track of Jews.
From underground to Wall Street
Kenneth Davis '69 knows how different it was to be Jewish in the 1960s than
today. He need only look at the experiences of his children, Daniel Davis '99
and Jordanna Davis '03.
"When my children are there, being Jewish is hardly a unique status," Davis
said. "It was unusual when I came to Yale to have a Jewish roommate. It's so
different [now] it brings tears to my eyes."
Today, Jews at Yale are not just more visible in number. The Slifka Center
for Jewish Life, built in 1995, is the first building of its kind at Yale, a structure
providing kosher food for students as well as a place to have many cultural events.
"I thought, and still do, that religious beliefs and practices should not be put on the
shelf when students enroll as freshmen," said Alan Slifka '51, the Slifka's Center
major benefactor. "I believe that spirit and matter belong on a university campus."
Copyright © 2001 Yale Daily News. All rights reserved.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: February 4th, 2005 10:27 AM Author: hero Subject: "Today's Jews" in admissions,are the Asian Americans
In the book, "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" , by Bill Paul, published by Addison Wesley, 1995, on pages 201 and 202, the Admissions Dean of UPenn, Mr. Lee Stetson, stated that Asian Americans are "today's Jews" in admissions, inferring that Asian Ams are discrimnated against in the same manner the Jews were with exclusionary or limiting quotas or caps on their numbers. With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews" in admission and be subjected to caps and racial quotas against them. This is immoral,
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153222) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:14 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153225) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:15 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153239) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:16 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Fac ut gaudeam - PUSSY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153242) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:29 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153311) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:37 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: hero
Again, I'll bet RWC is Jewish, thinking that he is a WASP in his delusions and hallucinations.
I'll bet my money on it.
Forget about the stock market, I'll take bets on RWC's Jewish heritage. I could set up a thread on the xoxohth as RWC had suggested.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153351) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:40 PM Author: Boyish Set Let's get back to reality and call a spade a spade and call RWC for what he REALLY IS, lest we all forget. RWC diverted this conversation, with his feelings of inadequency about his manhood, by fixating on "balls", "weenies", "pussies", and "sweet cheeks" , all his own words. He should seek psychiatric help for his feelings of indequency, whether male or female. It is hard to tell. Stop this, RWC, and bring your problems to a Psych Hospital, not here.
Let call RWC for what he really is and get get back to reality,
RWC IS A RACIST HYPOCRITE (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153371) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:41 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: hero
Again, I'll bet RWC is Jewish, thinking that he is a WASP in his delusions and hallucinations.
I'll bet my money on it.
Forget about the stock market, I'll take bets on RWC's Jewish heritage. I could set up a thread on the xoxohth as RWC had suggested.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153377) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:46 PM Author: Boyish Set You would just love it, wouldn't you? More inflation of ego and grandiose delusions for you. If you think it takes "balls" to start a thread on you, you are more than deluded. You do not know the meaning of "balls", which you have a fascination with, because you lack balls.
RWC, GET THIS THROUGH BALL-LESS SELF, IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY BALLS TO START A THREAD ON YOU.
Your don't know the definition of "balls", you racist hypocrite.
You have nothing else credible to say re: White Jews in the Ivies, or their ethnicity at 33% of Harvard and how this INCREASES THE RACIAL and ETHNIC DIVERSITY of the Ivies, yet you, a racist hypocrite, state that more Asian numbers will DECREASE the diversity. Also, you infer that having more WHITE LATINOS, will increase racial diversity.
You simply contradict yourself.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153406) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:47 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY
Date: February 17th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: hero
Again, I'll bet RWC is Jewish, thinking that he is a WASP in his delusions and hallucinations.
I'll bet my money on it.
Forget about the stock market, I'll take bets on RWC's Jewish heritage. I could set up a thread on the xoxohth as RWC had suggested.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153413) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:51 PM Author: Boyish Set You would just love it, wouldn't you? More inflation of ego and grandiose delusions for you. If you think it takes "balls" to start a thread on you, you are more than deluded. You do not know the meaning of "balls", which you have a fascination with, because you lack balls.
RWC, GET THIS THROUGH BALL-LESS SELF, IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY BALLS TO START A THREAD ON YOU.
Your don't know the definition of "balls", you racist hypocrite.
You have nothing else credible to say re: White Jews in the Ivies, or their ethnicity at 33% of Harvard and how this INCREASES THE RACIAL and ETHNIC DIVERSITY of the Ivies, yet you, a racist hypocrite, state that more Asian numbers will DECREASE the diversity. Also, you infer that having more WHITE LATINOS, will increase racial diversity.
You simply contradict yourself.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:48 PM Author: hero
Now, now. You are sinking even lower. You now bring to the table, the word, "pussy", a new development.
You would not know what a "pussy" is if it were in front of your ulgy face, because you have not had any "pussy" for as far back as you can remember, lurking on xoxhth for years.. Tell me about "pussy".
Apparently, pussies and weenies are your fascinations and fantasies, since you always bring these words to your posts. Being deprived of either a "pussy" or a "weenie" will do this to you, RWC. You are seriously ill, mainly because you haven't any "pussies" or for that matter, "weenies". You certainly don't have any of your own.
You don't know anything about "pussies", "weenies" and "balls" (your own words), because you don't have anyone of them. You would not know what they are if they were in front of eyeballs.
RWC, YOU WISH YOU HAD PUSSY. IT HAS BEEN SO LONG SINCE YOU SAW ONE, THAT YOUR WEENIE HAS DRIED UP. THAT IS, IF YOU HAD A WEENIE TO BEGIN WITH. I DOUBT IT.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153432) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:48 PM Author: Boyish Set Now, now. You are sinking even lower. You now bring to the table, the word, "pussy", a new development.
You would not know what a "pussy" is if it were in front of your ulgy face, because you have not had any "pussy" for as far back as you can remember, lurking on xoxhth for years.. Tell me about "pussy".
Apparently, pussies and weenies are your fascinations and fantasies, since you always bring these words to your posts. Being deprived of either a "pussy" or a "weenie" will do this to you, RWC. You are seriously ill, mainly because you haven't any "pussies" or for that matter, "weenies". You certainly don't have any of your own.
You don't know anything about "pussies", "weenies" and "balls" (your own words), because you don't have anyone of them. You would not know what they are if they were in front of eyeballs.
RWC, YOU WISH YOU HAD PUSSY. IT HAS BEEN SO LONG SINCE YOU SAW ONE, THAT YOUR WEENIE HAS DRIED UP. THAT IS, IF YOU HAD A WEENIE TO BEGIN WITH. I DOUBT IT.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153416) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:52 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PUSSY
Date: February 16th, 2005 7:34 AM Author: hero Subject: Blacks have to change their culture
ltorivia said, >> There has been COUNTLESS sociological, economic, historical literature on the subject why URMs, larger than the Asian population in this country, are behind and underrepresented in selective institutions. <<
You get your house in order and attempt to solve the underlying causes for these "sociological, and economic" problems. I would also include psychological and CULTURAL problems including the mindset of perpetual dependency on "the man" by blacks.
Race preferences in admissions to elite colleges benefitting a few academically underprepared and academically deficient affluent blacks, relative to the rest of the admitted class, does nothing to solve these problems. Show me evidence that this is otherwise. You can't. Mainly, the lower class blacks, the vast majority of blacks, are in shit's creek and are MORE ACADEMICALLY UNDERRPREPARED AND DEFICIENT. NOTHING IS BEING DONE FOR THESE BLACKS.
Race based AA is only a feelgood measure or a Band-Aid solution for the flaming guilt-ridden white liberals and the professional black victimologists who make a living off of this.
You must solve the problems at k-12 and even start at the pre-natal level and blacks must have a complete CHANGE IN THEIR CULTURE, eliminating their 90% out-of-wedlock births, dysfunctional families, with absent fathers or absent parents and child abandonment and abuse, black on black crime, drug abuse, perpetual dependency with the use of victimhood, and the lack of traditional family values and the lack of a high regard for education.
This can't be accomplished with a quick fix. Blacks must take charge of their own destiny and CHANGE THEIR CULTURE. Getting the few crums from "the man" in race preferences in admissions only will worsen the plight for blacks, especially the lower economic class blacks, widenig the gaps.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153434) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:01 PM Author: Boyish Set The Campus Diversity Fraud
The Campus Diversity Fraud
John H. McWhorter
In September, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the crude “black bonus” in the University of Georgia’s admissions policy wasn’t what the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision meant when it allowed colleges to take “diversity” into account in admissions decisions. Let’s hope that this decision spells the beginning of the end for the “diversity” argument in college admissions. It has been, from the start, an argument shot through with duplicity and bad faith. It is a craven, disingenuous, and destructive canard, antithetical to interracial harmony and black excellence—and racist besides.
The diversity imperative now so powerful on campus arose almost by chance, springing from a remark Justice Lewis Powell made in his concurrence in the Bakke decision. Allan Bakke had charged the medical school at the University of California at Davis with discrimination for twice turning him down, despite his high grades and admissions-test scores, while routinely admitting black students with C averages and poor admissions-test scores. The court found that quota systems like Davis’s were unconstitutional, but Powell’s opinion hedged slightly, asserting that it was appropriate for schools to base their admissions decisions upon a quest for a “diverse student body.” Powell’s statement provided a justification that universities, including the University of Georgia, quickly seized upon as a cover for admitting black students with significantly lower qualifications than those of white or Asian students. Instead of ending campus affirmative action, Bakke became its license.
White guilt is a dangerous and addictive drug, and for 20-plus years the Bakke decision has supported stricken higher-education administrators in their habit. Meanwhile, the diversity shibboleth has taught a generation of young Americans that black students are more important for their presence in promotional brochure photographs than for their scholastic qualifications—an essentialization now as rife among black as among white students. This message ultimately perpetuates the very underperformance that has made the fig-leaf diversity notion necessary.
The very term “diversity” craftily overshoots the actual goal in question. Mormons, paraplegics, people from Alaska, lesbians, Ayn Randians, and poor whites exert little pull on the heartstrings of admissions committees so committed to making college campuses “look like America.” The diversity that counts is brown-skinned minorities, especially African Americans.
Affirmative action at its inception in the late 1960s, when college administrators supposed that blacks’ low representation on campuses was simply a matter of discrimination, meant nothing more than opening the doors and providing some remedial help where needed. But these efforts to bring in qualified blacks ran up against the uncomfortably small number of such people in an America just past legalized segregation. Faced with those who were admitted, university professors, not surprisingly, proved unequal to the task of undoing the effects of 14 years of poor preparation in the basic skills necessary for college course work. Meanwhile, the triumph of the separatist belief in black America that scholastic achievement was a “white” endeavor rather than an American one further decreased the numbers of black students qualified for top schools, and it holds down their numbers to this day.
As a result, though Justice Powell doubtless had intended his diversity imperative to play out as a mere thumb on the scale, giving the edge to a brown-skinned candidate where his qualifications were equal to a white-skinned one’s, brute quota systems quickly came to reign on selective campuses. After my first year at Rutgers University, where I earned my bachelor’s degree in the mid-1980s, it was painfully clear to me that the black students were generally a rung below the general preparation and performance level of the white ones. Certainly there were excellent black students—but they were exceptions rather than the rule. Even as a teenager unconcerned with social policy or admissions procedures, I couldn’t but notice that black students had gotten in under some kind of quota system.
Rutgers top brass long maintained that race was used as just one of many factors, as the Bakke decision had directed. But a few years after I graduated, a student working in the admissions office blew the whistle, revealing that black students were put into a special pool and admitted according to significantly lower criteria than other students. Nor was Rutgers unique. Similar disclosures have emerged in school after school, including the University of California, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and, most recently, the University of Georgia. Even in their pro–affirmative action manifesto, The Shape of the River, William Bowen and Derek Bok admit—and painstakingly document—that this practice has been routine in selective universities across the nation for 30 years.
At the University of California at Berkeley, where I teach, the quota system was as obvious on the ground as it had been at Rutgers in the 1980s. One older white professor, an avowed leftist, confided in me that since the early 1970s black students had done badly in his classes so often that he had found himself viewing any black student who appeared on the first day of class as a potential problem. A white remedial-composition tutor observed that he had worked with so many minority students hopelessly underprepared for Berkeley-level work that he had found himself questioning the wisdom of racial preferences, despite his leftist persuasion. Professors across the country have expressed similar views to me.
Many would dismiss such observations as bias and stereotyping. The facts are otherwise. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom note in America in Black and White that black Berkeley students who enrolled in 1988 had an average SAT score below 1,000, compared with white students’ average of over 1,300. The highest quartile of black SAT scores in this class clustered at the bottom quarter of the SAT scores of all students. The high school grade average among black students was B-plus, rather than the straight-A average required of white students. Nor was this a mere Berzerk-ley aberration: in 1992, the gap in average SAT scores between black and white entrants was 150 points at Princeton, 171 at Stanford, 218 at Dartmouth, and 271 at Rice.
Graduation rates reflect this gulf in preparation. The Thernstroms document that, of the black students who entered Berkeley in 1988, 41 percent did not graduate, while only 16 percent of their white classmates did not. Bowen and Bok report that, at 28 top universities, black students in the class of 1989 were about three times more likely to drop out than white students.
Many ascribe these higher dropout rates to financial pressures rather than to the sharp deficits in high school grades and SAT scores. But the burden of proof is upon such people to identify just why grades and scores would not correlate significantly with a student’s chances of finishing college. Few have any problem seeing a causal link here when it comes to white students.
The argument that grades and scores are irrelevant to assessing a candidate defies both logic and experience. Consider the SAT. No one would argue that a student with a perfect SAT score is only a possible good match for Harvard or that a student with an abysmal SAT score was prime Harvard material. Precisely what, then, leads to the conclusion that SAT scores in between have no predictive power? In fact, as the Thernstroms show, graduation rates for black students who started at Berkeley in 1988 closely tracked their SAT scores: students with lower SATs were correspondingly less likely to get their degrees. Bowen and Bok acknowledge that SAT scores actually overpredict black students’ college performance—that is, black students do less well than their scores would predict, not better.
Faced with such hard facts, diversity fans have asserted that leadership skills, helping to put together the high school yearbook, and spunk are as relevant to assessing a student’s scholastic potential as . . . well, how they did academically in high school or how they scored on standardized tests. But aren’t leadership skills and spunk equally prevalent among white students? Surely, blacks aren’t innately perkier than whites. College-admissions committees that cheerily emphasize such extra-academic factors in evaluating black applicants basically are saying that blacks can’t compete in the truly decisive arena: the classroom. In the name of diversity, black students find themselves patronizingly exempted from serious competition.
Can we justify this exemption from standards by saying that it leads to a larger good? Supporters of campus diversity have made three broad arguments to this effect. The first is that bending the admissions rules to ensure diversity helps foster an interracial fellowship that all students will carry with them into society after they graduate. I tried to hold on to this idea for years, but in the end it just doesn’t wash.
In truth, “diverse” college campuses are among the most racially balkanized places in America. Separate black fraternities and sororities thrive. They first emerged in the early twentieth century, when white fraternities and sororities didn’t welcome black applicants. Today, black Greek organizations are thoroughly unenthusiastic toward whites. Reinforcing this separatism, some universities host all-black graduation ceremonies—the idea, apparently, being that one’s achievement is less a human or American one than a black one. In addition, black students typically cluster in their own section of the dining hall, throw their own parties, have their own theme houses, and leave college with a separatist ideology that they often didn’t hold when they first arrived. Interracial fellowship this is not.
Nor is one likely to find much interracial camaraderie in African-American studies classes. Supporters of such classes say that they help blacks learn about their rich heritage, but in practice, they often double as exercises in stoking hatred of the White Man. At Stanford, I was a teaching assistant in a predominantly black class on Black English. In itself, the subject encompasses much more than mere street slang—extending to grammatical structure, literature, and educational issues. Yet, class discussion devolved into visceral dismissal of whites so often that one white student complained to the professor that he felt any opinions he ventured beyond genuflections to black victimhood were unwelcome—and he was right. When, in a course I taught at Berkeley on the history of black musical theater, a female white student observed that rap lyrics were misogynistic, several black students dressed her down so vehemently that they left her in tears.
Confronted with such racial enmity, white students understandably start shunning blacks. John H. Bunzel documents in Race Relations on Campus: Stanford Students Speak Out that white Stanford students who endured constant vague accusations of racism from black students often became less interested in interracial outreach than they had been as freshmen—a trend I’ve noticed on other campuses where I’ve taught or visited.
For the black student who doesn’t toe the separatist line but really seeks interracial fellowship, university life can be uncomfortable. Blacks quickly discover that black authenticity means hunkering down behind a racial barricade, glaring angrily at the symbols of white “hegemony” that supposedly surround them, and believing that they are eternal victims in their own land. Edgy conversations with other black students who question the authenticity of one’s own “blackness” become a regular feature of life. Bunzel reports that black Stanford students told him they were expected to “talk black, dress black, think black, and certainly date black.” A black student who joins a traditionally white frat or sorority will face accusations that he or she is a self-hating sellout. A black acquaintance once told me that the overwhelming hostility she met with during her college years from black students scornful of her white friendships was far worse than any white racism she experienced at the time.
Scratch the surface, it seems, and diversity really means maintaining one’s separatist missiles at the ready. After black University of California regent Ward Connerly helped launch an ultimately successful campaign to outlaw racial preferences in U-Cal admissions a few years back, some black locals formed a committee called “Citizens Against Ward Connerly.” At one event, a committee representative joked, “Ward Connerly wants the University of California to be all vanilla—and I don’t like vanilla.” She sought audience approval, but given that at least half of her listeners were white, all she got was some nervous laughter. She quickly backtracked, adding, “I like to have some mix-ins—chips, nuts.” Her initial remark, though, revealed the truth: the people so furiously committed to campus diversity aren’t interested in a color-blind America. Their real goal is to ensure that the privileges of a college education don’t distract black students from the urgent task of keeping the fires of black alienation burning.
Since the notion that diversity encourages interracial bonding is so patently false, its defenders frequently make a second, somewhat different, argument. Racial preferences in admissions, they maintain, are crucial in order to ensure, if not fellowship, then at least exposure to different ethnic and racial groups, teaching a valuable lesson about the many equally valid viewpoints in a multicultural society. This view received official imprimatur in Powell’s Bakke concurrence, where the justice asserted that universities would benefit from selecting “those students [i.e., dark-skinned minorities] who will contribute most to the robust exchange of ideas.”
Given that Bakke concerned a medical school, just how being black qualifies one to make especially vigorous observations about surgical incisions and metabolic pathways is unclear, but never mind. The real, if implicit, assumption behind the exposure idea is that whites will learn about—and learn to respect—blacks from the other side of the tracks, whom they supposedly find so alien, despicable, and threatening. But in practice, what white students often learn at a university that lets in blacks under the bar is that blacks may not be as sharp as whites. It’s difficult to imagine how even the most well-intentioned white students could have avoided such a conclusion at Rutgers when I studied there in the 1980s.
More fundamentally, the “exposure” argument rests on a falsehood: that black students typically come from disadvantaged circumstances, unfamiliar to their white classmates. In fact, at selective schools, inner-city blacks have been vanishingly rare since the late 1960s, when a handful of top schools briefly—and unsuccessfully—experimented with admitting unqualified urban blacks to see if they could cope. But among black students in the last class admitted to Berkeley under the old racial preferences regime, more than 65 percent came from households earning at least $40,000 a year; the parents of 40 percent earned at least $60,000 yearly. Of blacks admitted in 1989 to the 28 selective universities that Bowen and Bok survey, just 14 percent came from homes earning $22,000 or less.
Precisely what traits do middle-class black kids display that a white student must learn about so that he won’t wash out in the management job he starts after graduation? I’ve found that middle-class black students asked to list a few such traits usually draw a blank. Even if many blacks from the ‘hood did show up at selective schools, however, why would learning about their cultural traits be vital to white students’ education? In African-American studies courses on the same campuses, blacks regularly—and rightly—decry the stereotype that all African Americans are poor. Surely a firsthand, four-year tutorial in the vibrancy of ghetto life would simply reinforce that stereotype. Poverty is a tragedy, not a life-style.
If neither the hope for greater interracial harmony nor the idea of whites learning from blacks justifies diversity policies, there is, finally, the moral argument that blacks deserve compensation for their tragic history. Centuries of disenfranchisement and segregation bar most blacks from really qualifying for top schools, affirmative action’s defenders charge, so it’s the right thing to do to let them in through the back door. “How, without racial preferences, can we make up for the fact that whites benefited from socially ingrained preferences for centuries?” furiously asked one black man at a talk I gave recently. Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer, reversing his longtime opposition to race-based admissions, claims that whites “owe” blacks due to past injustices. For all their sincerity, however, people like Glazer don’t understand that this tit-for-tat defense of racial preferences bars the only path that can lead us beyond our racial dilemmas.
It’s indisputable that historical disenfranchisement has left many blacks ill equipped to compete even when ladders to success beckon, as they do today—partly because of the economic and social obstacles to achievement that disadvantaged status entails and, even more, because long-term oppression helped create a black cultural identity opposed to mainstream success. For blacks to rise to the top, they must learn new skills and cultivate new attitudes. Those who’ve grown up under conditions that don’t offer direct paths to accomplishment have the task—unfair, but hardly limited to blacks—of discovering the knack of turning lemons into lemonade, as oppressed groups in America have done for centuries. A group that believes that mainstream achievement is inauthentic will have to refashion its self-conception if it is ever to get ahead in the only society it will ever call home.
Lowered standards are antithetical to both of these vital goals. A fundamental tenet of economics and psychology is that most people will do their best only if they have the incentive to do so. Lowered standards have robbed blacks of that incentive. One can only learn to ride a bicycle by mastering the subtle muscular poise of the endeavor oneself; as long as the training wheels remain on, one isn’t really riding the bike.
The point here isn’t moral but logical: black students will only reach their full potential if the affirmative-action safety net is withdrawn and they’re required to strive for excellence. Perhaps the most sobering reality black Americans face today is that even our tragic history cannot exempt us from this hard truth of the human condition. Asian students have never had the illusion that there was any path up other than showing their best stuff, come hell or high water, which is why so many of them excel. Students, though, who daily hear the message, “You only have to do pretty well to get into a top school” will—a few naturally gifted stars excepted—only do pretty well. To elevate diversity over true excellence condemns black students to mediocrity and is, quite simply, racist.
To call today’s university administrations racist may seem a bit strong. Yet what else should we make of university officials’ apparent belief that blacks are the only group in American history incapable of overcoming social and historical obstacles? So troubled is University of California president Richard Atkinson by the fall in black and Hispanic admissions to his flagship Berkeley and UCLA campuses since the end of racial preferences in the system that he has proposed eliminating the SAT from admissions requirements altogether.
Never mind that, after the overturning of preferences, black admissions fell only on these two top campuses, rising at several other UC schools; and that the University of California is now trying diligently to prepare minority students in middle and high schools throughout the state to submit competitive dossiers to UC. Atkinson is so skeptical that the new race-blind regime will ever bear fruit that he doesn’t consider it worth waiting to see what might happen over time. Instead, all he sees is the “re-segregation” that black and Latino faculty and administrators and their white fellow travelers warned about when the battle over preferences was raging. Implicitly, he seems to think that Berkeley and UCLA are the only California colleges worth attending, so that black students who don’t get into them have no choice but to fail.
This is offensive nonsense. Sure, over the past few years, many black kids who would have gone to Berkeley under the old system now attend UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, or other solid second-rank schools. But so what? They’re much more likely to thrive on these campuses than if they found themselves, unprepared, at legendarily demanding Berkeley and UCLA. And isn’t Atkinson’s conviction that the new system re-creates the era of Orville Faubus strangely dismissive of California’s non-elite state schools for the man entrusted with their stewardship?
Equally important, under the new race-blind system, black students know that they are as qualified academically as other students on campus. Armed with a confidence based on reality, black students will be more comfortable in white company and less likely to compensate for feelings of inferiority by retreating to their own section of the dining hall.
Affirmative-action supporters retort that under-qualified black students must be admitted to top schools, because the prestige of such institutions and the connections one makes attending them are essential to success in later life. This claim doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Journalist James Fallows notes in a recent piece in The Atlantic that “the four richest people in America, all of whom made rather than inherited their wealth, are a dropout from Harvard, a dropout from the University of Illinois, a dropout from Washington State University, and a graduate of the University of Nebraska.” Top universities, he adds, rarely show up on the résumés of congressmen, Nobel laureates, industry leaders, and even U.S. presidents. As for blacks, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom show that, of today’s African-American congressmen, army officers, recent Ph.D.s, MacArthur Foundation genius-award winners, and top business officials, only a tiny sliver attended elite colleges.
None of this is rocket science. Every college administrator knows that diversity is really a code word for “at least 5 percent black faces with a good sprinkling of Latinos,” and that this outcome is attainable only through quotas. Racial preferences continue to receive protection from the diversity fig leaf. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon. The question, “Aren’t you in favor of diversity?” today means, “Don’t you like black people?”—and nothing chills most thinking white Americans more than the fear of being deemed racist. At the same time, many blacks cheer preferences under the misguided impression that racism is the only possible cause of unequal performance, and thus they remain blind to the importance of the perseverance and individual initiative that will truly succeed in fostering black excellence.
A university culture truly committed to erasing the sins of the past would champion diversity in its true sense, infusing its discourse on race with a range of views wider than variations on victimhood. Since 1978, diversity has served as a flimsy and evasive perversion of justice. It has helped no one, least of all black students. It’s high time we swept it into the dustbin of history.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153473) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:02 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153479) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:55 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Right on, make the font bigger so it could read Subject: Blacks have to change their culture
ltorivia said, >> There has been COUNTLESS sociological, economic, historical literature on the subject why URMs, larger than the Asian population in this country, are behind and underrepresented in selective institutions. <<
You get your house in order and attempt to solve the underlying causes for these "sociological, and economic" problems. I would also include psychological and CULTURAL problems including the mindset of perpetual dependency on "the man" by blacks.
Race preferences in admissions to elite colleges benefitting a few academically underprepared and academically deficient affluent blacks, relative to the rest of the admitted class, does nothing to solve these problems. Show me evidence that this is otherwise. You can't. Mainly, the lower class blacks, the vast majority of blacks, are in shit's creek and are MORE ACADEMICALLY UNDERRPREPARED AND DEFICIENT. NOTHING IS BEING DONE FOR THESE BLACKS.
Race based AA is only a feelgood measure or a Band-Aid solution for the flaming guilt-ridden white liberals and the professional black victimologists who make a living off of this.
You must solve the problems at k-12 and even start at the pre-natal level and blacks must have a complete CHANGE IN THEIR CULTURE, eliminating their 90% out-of-wedlock births, dysfunctional families, with absent fathers or absent parents and child abandonment and abuse, black on black crime, drug abuse, perpetual dependency with the use of victimhood, and the lack of traditional family values and the lack of a high regard for education.
This can't be accomplished with a quick fix. Blacks must take charge of their own destiny and CHANGE THEIR CULTURE. Getting the few crums from "the man" in race preferences in admissions only will worsen the plight for blacks, especially the lower economic class blacks, widenig the gaps.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153446) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 2:57 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153461) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:02 PM Author: Boyish Set The Campus Diversity Fraud
The Campus Diversity Fraud
John H. McWhorter
In September, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the crude “black bonus” in the University of Georgia’s admissions policy wasn’t what the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision meant when it allowed colleges to take “diversity” into account in admissions decisions. Let’s hope that this decision spells the beginning of the end for the “diversity” argument in college admissions. It has been, from the start, an argument shot through with duplicity and bad faith. It is a craven, disingenuous, and destructive canard, antithetical to interracial harmony and black excellence—and racist besides.
The diversity imperative now so powerful on campus arose almost by chance, springing from a remark Justice Lewis Powell made in his concurrence in the Bakke decision. Allan Bakke had charged the medical school at the University of California at Davis with discrimination for twice turning him down, despite his high grades and admissions-test scores, while routinely admitting black students with C averages and poor admissions-test scores. The court found that quota systems like Davis’s were unconstitutional, but Powell’s opinion hedged slightly, asserting that it was appropriate for schools to base their admissions decisions upon a quest for a “diverse student body.” Powell’s statement provided a justification that universities, including the University of Georgia, quickly seized upon as a cover for admitting black students with significantly lower qualifications than those of white or Asian students. Instead of ending campus affirmative action, Bakke became its license.
White guilt is a dangerous and addictive drug, and for 20-plus years the Bakke decision has supported stricken higher-education administrators in their habit. Meanwhile, the diversity shibboleth has taught a generation of young Americans that black students are more important for their presence in promotional brochure photographs than for their scholastic qualifications—an essentialization now as rife among black as among white students. This message ultimately perpetuates the very underperformance that has made the fig-leaf diversity notion necessary.
The very term “diversity” craftily overshoots the actual goal in question. Mormons, paraplegics, people from Alaska, lesbians, Ayn Randians, and poor whites exert little pull on the heartstrings of admissions committees so committed to making college campuses “look like America.” The diversity that counts is brown-skinned minorities, especially African Americans.
Affirmative action at its inception in the late 1960s, when college administrators supposed that blacks’ low representation on campuses was simply a matter of discrimination, meant nothing more than opening the doors and providing some remedial help where needed. But these efforts to bring in qualified blacks ran up against the uncomfortably small number of such people in an America just past legalized segregation. Faced with those who were admitted, university professors, not surprisingly, proved unequal to the task of undoing the effects of 14 years of poor preparation in the basic skills necessary for college course work. Meanwhile, the triumph of the separatist belief in black America that scholastic achievement was a “white” endeavor rather than an American one further decreased the numbers of black students qualified for top schools, and it holds down their numbers to this day.
As a result, though Justice Powell doubtless had intended his diversity imperative to play out as a mere thumb on the scale, giving the edge to a brown-skinned candidate where his qualifications were equal to a white-skinned one’s, brute quota systems quickly came to reign on selective campuses. After my first year at Rutgers University, where I earned my bachelor’s degree in the mid-1980s, it was painfully clear to me that the black students were generally a rung below the general preparation and performance level of the white ones. Certainly there were excellent black students—but they were exceptions rather than the rule. Even as a teenager unconcerned with social policy or admissions procedures, I couldn’t but notice that black students had gotten in under some kind of quota system.
Rutgers top brass long maintained that race was used as just one of many factors, as the Bakke decision had directed. But a few years after I graduated, a student working in the admissions office blew the whistle, revealing that black students were put into a special pool and admitted according to significantly lower criteria than other students. Nor was Rutgers unique. Similar disclosures have emerged in school after school, including the University of California, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and, most recently, the University of Georgia. Even in their pro–affirmative action manifesto, The Shape of the River, William Bowen and Derek Bok admit—and painstakingly document—that this practice has been routine in selective universities across the nation for 30 years.
At the University of California at Berkeley, where I teach, the quota system was as obvious on the ground as it had been at Rutgers in the 1980s. One older white professor, an avowed leftist, confided in me that since the early 1970s black students had done badly in his classes so often that he had found himself viewing any black student who appeared on the first day of class as a potential problem. A white remedial-composition tutor observed that he had worked with so many minority students hopelessly underprepared for Berkeley-level work that he had found himself questioning the wisdom of racial preferences, despite his leftist persuasion. Professors across the country have expressed similar views to me.
Many would dismiss such observations as bias and stereotyping. The facts are otherwise. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom note in America in Black and White that black Berkeley students who enrolled in 1988 had an average SAT score below 1,000, compared with white students’ average of over 1,300. The highest quartile of black SAT scores in this class clustered at the bottom quarter of the SAT scores of all students. The high school grade average among black students was B-plus, rather than the straight-A average required of white students. Nor was this a mere Berzerk-ley aberration: in 1992, the gap in average SAT scores between black and white entrants was 150 points at Princeton, 171 at Stanford, 218 at Dartmouth, and 271 at Rice.
Graduation rates reflect this gulf in preparation. The Thernstroms document that, of the black students who entered Berkeley in 1988, 41 percent did not graduate, while only 16 percent of their white classmates did not. Bowen and Bok report that, at 28 top universities, black students in the class of 1989 were about three times more likely to drop out than white students.
Many ascribe these higher dropout rates to financial pressures rather than to the sharp deficits in high school grades and SAT scores. But the burden of proof is upon such people to identify just why grades and scores would not correlate significantly with a student’s chances of finishing college. Few have any problem seeing a causal link here when it comes to white students.
The argument that grades and scores are irrelevant to assessing a candidate defies both logic and experience. Consider the SAT. No one would argue that a student with a perfect SAT score is only a possible good match for Harvard or that a student with an abysmal SAT score was prime Harvard material. Precisely what, then, leads to the conclusion that SAT scores in between have no predictive power? In fact, as the Thernstroms show, graduation rates for black students who started at Berkeley in 1988 closely tracked their SAT scores: students with lower SATs were correspondingly less likely to get their degrees. Bowen and Bok acknowledge that SAT scores actually overpredict black students’ college performance—that is, black students do less well than their scores would predict, not better.
Faced with such hard facts, diversity fans have asserted that leadership skills, helping to put together the high school yearbook, and spunk are as relevant to assessing a student’s scholastic potential as . . . well, how they did academically in high school or how they scored on standardized tests. But aren’t leadership skills and spunk equally prevalent among white students? Surely, blacks aren’t innately perkier than whites. College-admissions committees that cheerily emphasize such extra-academic factors in evaluating black applicants basically are saying that blacks can’t compete in the truly decisive arena: the classroom. In the name of diversity, black students find themselves patronizingly exempted from serious competition.
Can we justify this exemption from standards by saying that it leads to a larger good? Supporters of campus diversity have made three broad arguments to this effect. The first is that bending the admissions rules to ensure diversity helps foster an interracial fellowship that all students will carry with them into society after they graduate. I tried to hold on to this idea for years, but in the end it just doesn’t wash.
In truth, “diverse” college campuses are among the most racially balkanized places in America. Separate black fraternities and sororities thrive. They first emerged in the early twentieth century, when white fraternities and sororities didn’t welcome black applicants. Today, black Greek organizations are thoroughly unenthusiastic toward whites. Reinforcing this separatism, some universities host all-black graduation ceremonies—the idea, apparently, being that one’s achievement is less a human or American one than a black one. In addition, black students typically cluster in their own section of the dining hall, throw their own parties, have their own theme houses, and leave college with a separatist ideology that they often didn’t hold when they first arrived. Interracial fellowship this is not.
Nor is one likely to find much interracial camaraderie in African-American studies classes. Supporters of such classes say that they help blacks learn about their rich heritage, but in practice, they often double as exercises in stoking hatred of the White Man. At Stanford, I was a teaching assistant in a predominantly black class on Black English. In itself, the subject encompasses much more than mere street slang—extending to grammatical structure, literature, and educational issues. Yet, class discussion devolved into visceral dismissal of whites so often that one white student complained to the professor that he felt any opinions he ventured beyond genuflections to black victimhood were unwelcome—and he was right. When, in a course I taught at Berkeley on the history of black musical theater, a female white student observed that rap lyrics were misogynistic, several black students dressed her down so vehemently that they left her in tears.
Confronted with such racial enmity, white students understandably start shunning blacks. John H. Bunzel documents in Race Relations on Campus: Stanford Students Speak Out that white Stanford students who endured constant vague accusations of racism from black students often became less interested in interracial outreach than they had been as freshmen—a trend I’ve noticed on other campuses where I’ve taught or visited.
For the black student who doesn’t toe the separatist line but really seeks interracial fellowship, university life can be uncomfortable. Blacks quickly discover that black authenticity means hunkering down behind a racial barricade, glaring angrily at the symbols of white “hegemony” that supposedly surround them, and believing that they are eternal victims in their own land. Edgy conversations with other black students who question the authenticity of one’s own “blackness” become a regular feature of life. Bunzel reports that black Stanford students told him they were expected to “talk black, dress black, think black, and certainly date black.” A black student who joins a traditionally white frat or sorority will face accusations that he or she is a self-hating sellout. A black acquaintance once told me that the overwhelming hostility she met with during her college years from black students scornful of her white friendships was far worse than any white racism she experienced at the time.
Scratch the surface, it seems, and diversity really means maintaining one’s separatist missiles at the ready. After black University of California regent Ward Connerly helped launch an ultimately successful campaign to outlaw racial preferences in U-Cal admissions a few years back, some black locals formed a committee called “Citizens Against Ward Connerly.” At one event, a committee representative joked, “Ward Connerly wants the University of California to be all vanilla—and I don’t like vanilla.” She sought audience approval, but given that at least half of her listeners were white, all she got was some nervous laughter. She quickly backtracked, adding, “I like to have some mix-ins—chips, nuts.” Her initial remark, though, revealed the truth: the people so furiously committed to campus diversity aren’t interested in a color-blind America. Their real goal is to ensure that the privileges of a college education don’t distract black students from the urgent task of keeping the fires of black alienation burning.
Since the notion that diversity encourages interracial bonding is so patently false, its defenders frequently make a second, somewhat different, argument. Racial preferences in admissions, they maintain, are crucial in order to ensure, if not fellowship, then at least exposure to different ethnic and racial groups, teaching a valuable lesson about the many equally valid viewpoints in a multicultural society. This view received official imprimatur in Powell’s Bakke concurrence, where the justice asserted that universities would benefit from selecting “those students [i.e., dark-skinned minorities] who will contribute most to the robust exchange of ideas.”
Given that Bakke concerned a medical school, just how being black qualifies one to make especially vigorous observations about surgical incisions and metabolic pathways is unclear, but never mind. The real, if implicit, assumption behind the exposure idea is that whites will learn about—and learn to respect—blacks from the other side of the tracks, whom they supposedly find so alien, despicable, and threatening. But in practice, what white students often learn at a university that lets in blacks under the bar is that blacks may not be as sharp as whites. It’s difficult to imagine how even the most well-intentioned white students could have avoided such a conclusion at Rutgers when I studied there in the 1980s.
More fundamentally, the “exposure” argument rests on a falsehood: that black students typically come from disadvantaged circumstances, unfamiliar to their white classmates. In fact, at selective schools, inner-city blacks have been vanishingly rare since the late 1960s, when a handful of top schools briefly—and unsuccessfully—experimented with admitting unqualified urban blacks to see if they could cope. But among black students in the last class admitted to Berkeley under the old racial preferences regime, more than 65 percent came from households earning at least $40,000 a year; the parents of 40 percent earned at least $60,000 yearly. Of blacks admitted in 1989 to the 28 selective universities that Bowen and Bok survey, just 14 percent came from homes earning $22,000 or less.
Precisely what traits do middle-class black kids display that a white student must learn about so that he won’t wash out in the management job he starts after graduation? I’ve found that middle-class black students asked to list a few such traits usually draw a blank. Even if many blacks from the ‘hood did show up at selective schools, however, why would learning about their cultural traits be vital to white students’ education? In African-American studies courses on the same campuses, blacks regularly—and rightly—decry the stereotype that all African Americans are poor. Surely a firsthand, four-year tutorial in the vibrancy of ghetto life would simply reinforce that stereotype. Poverty is a tragedy, not a life-style.
If neither the hope for greater interracial harmony nor the idea of whites learning from blacks justifies diversity policies, there is, finally, the moral argument that blacks deserve compensation for their tragic history. Centuries of disenfranchisement and segregation bar most blacks from really qualifying for top schools, affirmative action’s defenders charge, so it’s the right thing to do to let them in through the back door. “How, without racial preferences, can we make up for the fact that whites benefited from socially ingrained preferences for centuries?” furiously asked one black man at a talk I gave recently. Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer, reversing his longtime opposition to race-based admissions, claims that whites “owe” blacks due to past injustices. For all their sincerity, however, people like Glazer don’t understand that this tit-for-tat defense of racial preferences bars the only path that can lead us beyond our racial dilemmas.
It’s indisputable that historical disenfranchisement has left many blacks ill equipped to compete even when ladders to success beckon, as they do today—partly because of the economic and social obstacles to achievement that disadvantaged status entails and, even more, because long-term oppression helped create a black cultural identity opposed to mainstream success. For blacks to rise to the top, they must learn new skills and cultivate new attitudes. Those who’ve grown up under conditions that don’t offer direct paths to accomplishment have the task—unfair, but hardly limited to blacks—of discovering the knack of turning lemons into lemonade, as oppressed groups in America have done for centuries. A group that believes that mainstream achievement is inauthentic will have to refashion its self-conception if it is ever to get ahead in the only society it will ever call home.
Lowered standards are antithetical to both of these vital goals. A fundamental tenet of economics and psychology is that most people will do their best only if they have the incentive to do so. Lowered standards have robbed blacks of that incentive. One can only learn to ride a bicycle by mastering the subtle muscular poise of the endeavor oneself; as long as the training wheels remain on, one isn’t really riding the bike.
The point here isn’t moral but logical: black students will only reach their full potential if the affirmative-action safety net is withdrawn and they’re required to strive for excellence. Perhaps the most sobering reality black Americans face today is that even our tragic history cannot exempt us from this hard truth of the human condition. Asian students have never had the illusion that there was any path up other than showing their best stuff, come hell or high water, which is why so many of them excel. Students, though, who daily hear the message, “You only have to do pretty well to get into a top school” will—a few naturally gifted stars excepted—only do pretty well. To elevate diversity over true excellence condemns black students to mediocrity and is, quite simply, racist.
To call today’s university administrations racist may seem a bit strong. Yet what else should we make of university officials’ apparent belief that blacks are the only group in American history incapable of overcoming social and historical obstacles? So troubled is University of California president Richard Atkinson by the fall in black and Hispanic admissions to his flagship Berkeley and UCLA campuses since the end of racial preferences in the system that he has proposed eliminating the SAT from admissions requirements altogether.
Never mind that, after the overturning of preferences, black admissions fell only on these two top campuses, rising at several other UC schools; and that the University of California is now trying diligently to prepare minority students in middle and high schools throughout the state to submit competitive dossiers to UC. Atkinson is so skeptical that the new race-blind regime will ever bear fruit that he doesn’t consider it worth waiting to see what might happen over time. Instead, all he sees is the “re-segregation” that black and Latino faculty and administrators and their white fellow travelers warned about when the battle over preferences was raging. Implicitly, he seems to think that Berkeley and UCLA are the only California colleges worth attending, so that black students who don’t get into them have no choice but to fail.
This is offensive nonsense. Sure, over the past few years, many black kids who would have gone to Berkeley under the old system now attend UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, or other solid second-rank schools. But so what? They’re much more likely to thrive on these campuses than if they found themselves, unprepared, at legendarily demanding Berkeley and UCLA. And isn’t Atkinson’s conviction that the new system re-creates the era of Orville Faubus strangely dismissive of California’s non-elite state schools for the man entrusted with their stewardship?
Equally important, under the new race-blind system, black students know that they are as qualified academically as other students on campus. Armed with a confidence based on reality, black students will be more comfortable in white company and less likely to compensate for feelings of inferiority by retreating to their own section of the dining hall.
Affirmative-action supporters retort that under-qualified black students must be admitted to top schools, because the prestige of such institutions and the connections one makes attending them are essential to success in later life. This claim doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Journalist James Fallows notes in a recent piece in The Atlantic that “the four richest people in America, all of whom made rather than inherited their wealth, are a dropout from Harvard, a dropout from the University of Illinois, a dropout from Washington State University, and a graduate of the University of Nebraska.” Top universities, he adds, rarely show up on the résumés of congressmen, Nobel laureates, industry leaders, and even U.S. presidents. As for blacks, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom show that, of today’s African-American congressmen, army officers, recent Ph.D.s, MacArthur Foundation genius-award winners, and top business officials, only a tiny sliver attended elite colleges.
None of this is rocket science. Every college administrator knows that diversity is really a code word for “at least 5 percent black faces with a good sprinkling of Latinos,” and that this outcome is attainable only through quotas. Racial preferences continue to receive protection from the diversity fig leaf. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon. The question, “Aren’t you in favor of diversity?” today means, “Don’t you like black people?”—and nothing chills most thinking white Americans more than the fear of being deemed racist. At the same time, many blacks cheer preferences under the misguided impression that racism is the only possible cause of unequal performance, and thus they remain blind to the importance of the perseverance and individual initiative that will truly succeed in fostering black excellence.
A university culture truly committed to erasing the sins of the past would champion diversity in its true sense, infusing its discourse on race with a range of views wider than variations on victimhood. Since 1978, diversity has served as a flimsy and evasive perversion of justice. It has helped no one, least of all black students. It’s high time we swept it into the dustbin of history.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153480) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:02 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153491) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:17 PM Author: Boyish Set RWC is a racist hypocrite. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153573) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:19 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153590) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:20 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153595) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:23 PM Author: Boyish Set RWC is a racist hypocrite (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153606) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:25 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican ppppppppuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeerr
ccccooooowwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrddddddd
wwwwwwhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr
llllllllooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeerrrrrrrr (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153615) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:22 PM Author: Boyish Set Comment on the Jews, RWC and Tricky, both RACIST HYPOCRITES
The racist hypocrite Tricky said, "Ok, I agree Asians aren't all about studying, although it seems like there is a tendency among them. If you have a link showing the Asian diversification into ALL FIELDS OF STUDY, that would be helpful."
Read this to your heart's content, you racist HYPOCRITE. You have yet to answer my question about the 33% of Jews at Harvard or the 25% of Jews in the Ivies, for 2% of the America population. You obviously have no problems with the Jewish numbers, yet you continually harp against Asian Americans, a most diverse group, both in interests and even in skin color, and ethnic differences, including students from backgrounds of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), South East Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma), East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) and the Pacific Islanders (Hawaii, Samoa, Figi,) and the Philippines. You are ignorant, because you lump Asian Americans into one monolithic group, without any basis. As you can see, they are NOT one monolithic group, racially or ethnically. South Asians are racially Caucasions, and they are included in the Asian American group in admissions and demographically in the US Census, giving the total of 4% Asian Americans in America.
Asian Americans represent one of the most DIVERSE groups in America, both RACIALLY and ETHNICALLY, in addition to having the most diverse interests in EVERY field of study offered in the university, as evidenced at both Harvard and UC Berkeley, supporting the best and highest ranked Depts. in the world, in the best schools in the world, with their scholarship and achievements, yet you demean and trivialize them with your racism against Asian Americans.
That is exactly what the Jews did, but they are almost completely racially white as a group in these schools.
BTW, the vast majority of Hispanics or Latinos are racilly white or Caucasion.
Comment on the Jews, IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS. You DON'T have TESTICLES. You won't comment, because of your hypocrisy and your racist stereotypes against ALL Asian Americans.
You just don't know how weak your arguments are, yet you condone DISCRIMNATION against Asian Americans, and not the Jews in admissions. Jews are the most OVERREPRESENTED group in the Ivies and the elite colleges by more than a factor of FIFHTEEN (15), at 33% of Harvard for their 1.5% of the Jewish college age population.
I have no problems with the Jewish numbers. There no caps for Jews. I am against all racial, ethnic and religious quotas in admissions to elite schools. I have a MAJOR problem with the caps on Asian American numbers.
Tricky, you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population. If it were, 90% of the Jews in the Ivies TODAY would not have been admitted, and the Jewish quota would remain intact,. If it were, the Ivies would be 87% Christian and not 25% Jewish. Yet, you insist on an anti-Asian American quota limiting Asian Americans, simply because of perceived racial overrpresentation. You represent the lowest form of racist hypocrisy and your arguments are WEAK and would not hold water in any reasonable discourse.
Unfortunately, your statements about the narrowly focused Asian American is simply not true. The FACTS ARE NOT SKEWED. You are misinformed by the ones who would have you believe the Asian stereotype of the math and science, who is one dimensional, with no other interests. This is simply NOT TRUE and represents a RACIST STEREOTYPE fostered by the white mass media, the adcoms and the proponents for racial diversity, not diversity of interests.
Yes, Asian Americans are in math, the phyiscal and applied sciences and engineering way out of proportion to their percentage in the population, but they are also into most other fields in numbers and percentages also, out of proportion to their percentages in the American population.
You are perpetuating stereotypes of Asian Americans. Asian Americans are not only into math and science where they excel, but they are into every field of endeavor known and also are well represented and OVERRREPRESENTED in every field of graduate and professional study.
Asian Americans ARE NOT NARROWLY FOCUSED! There is no evidence for this. They have diverse interests, from the arts and humanities, philosophy, sociology, the peforming and visual arts, music, architecture, and religion to math and science.
Not all Asian Americans go into math and science. That is a stereotype, with no basis in fact.
Asian Americans go into every field of study, including law, business, architecture, divinity, journalism, education, the arts and humanities, government, dentistry and medicine at Harvard and at every university in the country, including UC BBerkeley, where Asian Americans are 45% of the students with DIVERSE interests.
ASIAN AMERICANS ARE ONLY 4% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION.
The top law schools in America are 10% Asian American. The top business schools are over 10% Asian American.
At Harvard, the Law School is 10% Asian American, the Business School is 11% Asian American, the Divinity School is 5% Asian American, the School of Education is 9% Asian American, the School of Government is 7% Asian American, the School of Public Health is 10% Asian American, the School of Design is 14% Asian American, the Dental School is 27% Asian American, the Medical School is 24% Asian American, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is 8% Asian American.
These numbers are generally true in all the Ivies and most of the elite colleges.
As you can see, Asian Americans do not study math, science and engineering only.
Check out the Harvard University Fact Book for Degree Student Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity: Fall 2002.
http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/budget/factbook/current_facts/enroll_ethnicity_7.html
Asian Americans with diverse interests are screwed in the admissions game at Harvard, the Ivies and the elite colleges by being required to meet a higher standard of achievement for admissions, not because they are only interested in math and science, but because there ARE TOO MANY EXCELLENT AND STELLAR ASIANS, WITH VERY DIVERSE INTERESTS, way out of proportion to their percentages in the American population. This goes against Harvard's goals for racial and ethnic diversity, and therefore Harvard imposes racial goals/quotas against Asian Americans, limiting their numbers they admit. They don't do this against the Jews, a similar most highly qualified group with diverse interests. If Harvard didn't impose caps on Asian Americans, the numbers of Asian Americans at Harvard College would even be HIGHER than the 16% that Harvard admits. I mean, who wants to see Harvard at a higher percentage of Asian Americans, if they were actually admitted commensurate with their qualifications or at at the same level of achievement as the rest of the class? A racist hypocrite such as Tricky would not want Asian Americans at at higher percentage, yet Jews are 33% of Harvard and 25% of the Ivies and many of the elite colleges for merely 2% of the American population.
Again Tricky, comment on the Jews, IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS. You DON'T have TESTICLES. You won't comment, because of your hypocrisy and your racist stereotypes against ALL Asian Americans.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153600) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:24 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: RWC is a racist hypocrite Date: February 15th, 2005 10:02 PM Author: RWC (Love cures people, the ones who give it and the ones who recieve) Subject: I could not agree with you more
So enjoy yr slow boat back to China where you will be so much happier - and as a bonus you will not have to worry about admission to the Ivy schools that don't find you qualified in the first place. Enjoy yr superiority in Shanghi - I bid thee a bon voyage - Now that our rail roads are completed yr services are no longer required - Later - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153612) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:26 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican ppppppppuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeerr
ccccooooowwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrddddddd
wwwwwwhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr
llllllllooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeerrrrrrrr (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153620) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:28 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: RWC is a racist hypocrite Date: February 15th, 2005 10:02 PM Author: RWC (Love cures people, the ones who give it and the ones who recieve) Subject: I could not agree with you more
So enjoy yr slow boat back to China where you will be so much happier - and as a bonus you will not have to worry about admission to the Ivy schools that don't find you qualified in the first place. Enjoy yr superiority in Shanghi - I bid thee a bon voyage - Now that our rail roads are completed yr services are no longer required - Later - (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153627) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:29 PM Author: Boyish Set Date: February 17th, 2005 3:28 PM Author: hero Subject: RWC is a racist hypocrite
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:02 PM
Author: RWC (Love cures people, the ones who give it and the ones who recieve)
Subject: I could not agree with you more
So enjoy yr slow boat back to China where you will be so much happier - and as a bonus you will not have to worry about admission to the Ivy schools that don't find you qualified in the first place. Enjoy yr superiority in Shanghi - I bid thee a bon voyage - Now that our rail roads are completed yr services are no longer required - Later -
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153639) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:31 PM Author: Charismatic sapphire national mexican Damn - I am a great writer - Hey Post the post rite before this one - go on I dare you
ppppppppuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeerr
ccccooooowwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrddddddd
wwwwwwhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr
llllllllooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeerrrrrrrr (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153646) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:36 PM Author: Boyish Set Date: February 17th, 2005 8:52 AM Author: hero Subject: Comment on the Jews, RWC and Tricky, both RACIST HYPOCRITES
The racist hypocrite Tricky said, "Ok, I agree Asians aren't all about studying, although it seems like there is a tendency among them. If you have a link showing the Asian diversification into ALL FIELDS OF STUDY, that would be helpful."
Read this to your heart's content, you racist HYPOCRITE. You have yet to answer my question about the 33% of Jews at Harvard or the 25% of Jews in the Ivies, for 2% of the American population. You obviously have no problems with the Jewish numbers, yet you continually harp against Asian Americans, a most diverse group, both in interests and even in skin color, and ethnic differences, including students from backgrounds of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), South East Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma), East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) and the Pacific Islanders (Hawaii, Samoa, Figi,) and the Philippines. You are ignorant, because you lump Asian Americans into one monolithic group, without any basis. As you can see, they are NOT one monolithic group, racially or ethnically. South Asians are racially Caucasions, and they are included in the Asian American group in admissions and demographically in the US Census, giving the total of 4% Asian Americans in America.
Asian Americans represent one of the most DIVERSE groups in America, both RACIALLY and ETHNICALLY, in addition to having the most diverse interests in EVERY field of study offered in the university, as evidenced at both Harvard and UC Berkeley, supporting the best and highest ranked Depts. in the world, in the best schools in the world, with their scholarship and achievements, yet you demean and trivialize them with your racism against Asian Americans.
That is exactly what the Jews did, but they are almost completely racially white as a group in these schools.
BTW, the vast majority of Hispanics or Latinos are racilly white or Caucasion.
Comment on the Jews, IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS. You DON'T have TESTICLES. You won't comment, because of your hypocrisy and your racist stereotypes against ALL Asian Americans.
You just don't know how weak your arguments are, yet you condone DISCRIMNATION against Asian Americans, and not the Jews in admissions. Jews are the most OVERREPRESENTED group in the Ivies and the elite colleges by more than a factor of FIFHTEEN (15), at 33% of Harvard for their 1.5% of the Jewish college age population.
I have no problems with the Jewish numbers. There no caps for Jews. I am against all racial, ethnic and religious quotas in admissions to elite schools. I have a MAJOR problem with the caps on Asian American numbers.
Tricky, you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population. If it were, 90% of the Jews in the Ivies TODAY would not have been admitted, and the Jewish quota would remain intact,. If it were, the Ivies would be 87% Christian and not 25% Jewish. Yet, you insist on an anti-Asian American quota limiting Asian Americans, simply because of perceived racial overrpresentation. You represent the lowest form of racist hypocrisy and your arguments are WEAK and would not hold water in any reasonable discourse.
Unfortunately, your statements about the narrowly focused Asian American is simply not true. The FACTS ARE NOT SKEWED. You are misinformed by the ones who would have you believe the Asian stereotype of the math and science, who is one dimensional, with no other interests. This is simply NOT TRUE and represents a RACIST STEREOTYPE fostered by the white mass media, the adcoms and the proponents for racial diversity, not diversity of interests.
Yes, Asian Americans are in math, the phyiscal and applied sciences and engineering way out of proportion to their percentage in the population, but they are also into most other fields in numbers and percentages also, out of proportion to their percentages in the American population.
You are perpetuating stereotypes of Asian Americans. Asian Americans are not only into math and science where they excel, but they are into every field of endeavor known and also are well represented and OVERRREPRESENTED in every field of graduate and professional study.
Asian Americans ARE NOT NARROWLY FOCUSED! There is no evidence for this. They have diverse interests, from the arts and humanities, philosophy, sociology, the peforming and visual arts, music, architecture, and religion to math and science.
Not all Asian Americans go into math and science. That is a stereotype, with no basis in fact.
Asian Americans go into every field of study, including law, business, architecture, divinity, journalism, education, the arts and humanities, government, dentistry and medicine at Harvard and at every university in the country, including UC BBerkeley, where Asian Americans are 45% of the students with DIVERSE interests.
ASIAN AMERICANS ARE ONLY 4% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION.
The top law schools in America are 10% Asian American. The top business schools are over 10% Asian American.
At Harvard, the Law School is 10% Asian American, the Business School is 11% Asian American, the Divinity School is 5% Asian American, the School of Education is 9% Asian American, the School of Government is 7% Asian American, the School of Public Health is 10% Asian American, the School of Design is 14% Asian American, the Dental School is 27% Asian American, the Medical School is 24% Asian American, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is 8% Asian American.
These numbers are generally true in all the Ivies and most of the elite colleges.
As you can see, Asian Americans do not study math, science and engineering only.
Check out the Harvard University Fact Book for Degree Student Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity: Fall 2002.
http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/budget/factbook/current_facts/enroll_ethnicity_7.html
Asian Americans with diverse interests are screwed in the admissions game at Harvard, the Ivies and the elite colleges by being required to meet a higher standard of achievement for admissions, not because they are only interested in math and science, but because there ARE TOO MANY EXCELLENT AND STELLAR ASIANS, WITH VERY DIVERSE INTERESTS, way out of proportion to their percentages in the American population. This goes against Harvard's goals for racial and ethnic diversity, and therefore Harvard imposes racial goals/quotas against Asian Americans, limiting their numbers they admit. They don't do this against the Jews, a similar most highly qualified group with diverse interests. If Harvard didn't impose caps on Asian Americans, the numbers of Asian Americans at Harvard College would even be HIGHER than the 16% that Harvard admits. I mean, who wants to see Harvard at a higher percentage of Asian Americans, if they were actually admitted commensurate with their qualifications or at at the same level of achievement as the rest of the class? A racist hypocrite such as Tricky would not want Asian Americans at at higher percentage, yet Jews are 33% of Harvard and 25% of the Ivies and many of the elite colleges for merely 2% of the American population.
Again Tricky, comment on the Jews, IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS. You DON'T have TESTICLES. You won't comment, because of your hypocrisy and your racist stereotypes against ALL Asian Americans.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: February 17th, 2005 8:54 AM Author: hero Subject: RWC, RACIST HYPOCRITE
Tricky and RWC, you both are racist hypocrites, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population. If it were, 90% of the Jews in the Ivies TODAY would not have been admitted, and the Jewish quota would remain intact,. If it were, the Ivies would be 87% Christian and not 25% Jewish. Yet, you insist on an anti-Asian American quota limiting Asian Americans, simply because of perceived racial overrpresentation. You represent the lowest form of racist hypocrisy and your arguments are WEAK and would not hold water in any reasonable discourse.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153670) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:37 PM Author: Boyish Set Date: February 17th, 2005 3:29 PM Author: hero
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:28 PM
Author: hero
Subject: RWC is a racist hypocrite
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:02 PM
Author: RWC (Love cures people, the ones who give it and the ones who recieve)
Subject: I could not agree with you more
So enjoy yr slow boat back to China where you will be so much happier - and as a bonus you will not have to worry about admission to the Ivy schools that don't find you qualified in the first place. Enjoy yr superiority in Shanghi - I bid thee a bon voyage - Now that our rail roads are completed yr services are no longer required - Later -
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153678) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:39 PM Author: Boyish Set Date: February 17th, 2005 3:28 PM
Author: hero
Subject: RWC is a racist hypocrite
Date: February 15th, 2005 10:02 PM
Author: RWC (Love cures people, the ones who give it and the ones who recieve)
Subject: I could not agree with you more
So enjoy yr slow boat back to China where you will be so much happier - and as a bonus you will not have to worry about admission to the Ivy schools that don't find you qualified in the first place. Enjoy yr superiority in Shanghi - I bid thee a bon voyage - Now that our rail roads are completed yr services are no longer required - Later -
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153689) |
|
Date: February 17th, 2005 3:47 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: RWC at his best Date: February 17th, 2005 12:49 PM Author: RWC (Love cures people, the ones who give it and the ones who recieve)
OK so yr a pussy. It was NOT my idea Mr. Rockey Scientist.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: February 17th, 2005 1:02 PM Author: hero
Now, now. You are sinking even lower. You now bring to the table, the word, "pussy", a new development.
You would not know what a "pussy" is if it were in front of your ulgy face, because you have not had any "pussy" for as far back as you can remember, lurking on xoxhth for years.. Tell me about "pussy".
Apparently, pussies and weenies are your fascinations and fantasies, since you always bring these words to your posts. Being deprived of either a "pussy" or a "weenie" will do this to you, RWC. You are seriously ill, mainly because you haven't any "pussies" or for that matter, "weenies". You certainly don't have any of your own.
You don't know anything about "pussies", "weenies" and "balls" (your own words), because you don't have anyone of them. You would not know what they are if they were in front of eyeballs.
RWC, YOU WISH YOU HAD PUSSY. IT HAS BEEN SO LONG SINCE YOU SAW ONE, THAT YOUR WEENIE HAS DRIED UP. THAT IS, IF YOU HAD A WEENIE TO BEGIN WITH. I DOUBT IT.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2153743) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 6:46 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Date: February 17th, 2005 9:23 AM Author: hero Subject: "Tricky- you avoided my question about JEWS. Again you are a racist hypocrite, because DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation of the population."
Yeah, I avoided your question about Jews, just like you avoided my question about DIVERSITY.
"DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation.."
Could you please tell me WHERE did I ever make that statement? I NEVER DID. If you could go back and re-read my post referencing "diversity," you will realize I said that diversity is defined by cultural, background, perspective and life experiences of applicants, which DOES serve a purpose in a college experience. Education is not only about academics, but about interacting and learning from different people and different cultures and life experiences. Do you seriously believe that such issues have no value in life?? And you ask me to stop seeing Asians as one-dimensional when it comes to their SOLE FOCUS ON ACADEMICS? If you cannot understand or appreciate that, you are obviously stressing the Asian stereotype that academic work is ALL what an Asian can contribute to the world. And there is much more than that, at least in the United States. BTW, my comment regarding Chinese cultural differences DOES apply to Asians in the US. While they are Asian Americans, they still hold very similar values as those held by Chinese in China.
Whether you like it or not, the different races in the U.S. possess different cultures, backgrounds, perspectives and life experiences. So, it is not RACE itself what creates teh so-called "diversity," but what the racial groups bring from their cultural backgrounds and life experiences.
Regarding your question about Jews, I do not agree with Jews being accepted in masses. My argument has never been in favor of Jews, but rather, in favor of affirmative action for a fair representation of the cultural and background diversity that it brings to the college.
By the way, I am a Latina, and I have white skin. What would you say I am?? A Caucasian? NO. My cultural and life experience is 100% Hispanic, and I can tell you that just like Asians have a cultural advantage when it comes to academic achievement, Latinos have a cultural disadvantage because the culture does NOT stress academic achievement and it stresses other ridiculous values, and like it or not, social forces rule people's lives. I myself isolated myself from my own culture simply for the purpose of achieving my academic goals. If I were with my family, I'd be expected to "graduate" for the hell of it, regardless of grades, and marry, have children. The rest? Nobody cares. A career woman? Unacceptable, unless I can simultaneously have 3 children, and I keep them and my husband happy, and spend my time cooking. Most women are miserable, but keep a facade of happiness just to please society. For us, the outside matters more than the academic achievements of Chinese. So what, should we get punished because of a culture we didn't even choose? Most Latinos I know in the US HATE their cultures. All we get is pressure from families to fit the family model, REGARDLESS of academic achievement. We don't even call our families often, and if we do, we keep our conversations to a minimum, because our interests clash.
So Asians should be rewarded (because of the culture they were born with) while URMs should be punished based on the same.
Like I said and I repeat, MERIT is beyond stats. An URM could achieve highly if given the chance and if guided in the right direction. Eliminating them from the top schools would have fatal repercussions in the overall identity of the whole race in the nation.
And I am not fully informed about the overrepresentation of Jews, but like I said, I never said I agreed with that. My point was ONLY in regard to affirmative action. If you want to make a point that Jews have an unfair advantage, state it THAT WAY. Your attacking AA itself only conveys a repulsion for URMs who have a cultural disadvantage that is just as great as the cultural advantage that Asians have in terms of academics.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159160) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 8:58 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: HEY TRICKY (SLY, DISINGENUOUS) , YOU ARE FULL OF IT. Hey Tricky (sly, disingenuous, slimey):
You are using DOUBLETALK and DOUBLESPEAK.
Simply stated, if you believe in what you had said, admissions should be race blind.
1. YOU KEEP HARPING ON STATS. I MADE THE POINT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, EVEN IF THE SCHOOLS COMPLETELY ELIMINATE "STATS" FOR ADMISSIONS, ASIAN AMERICANS WILL BE STELLAR ACCORDING TO ANY HOLISTIC CRITERIA THESE SCHOOLS USE. UC Berkeley has already devalued "stats" and it is using the "Comprehensive Review" in admissions without race as a factor. Asian Americans are being admitted at the same rates as whites, not at lower rates than blacks and whites. Asian Americans are being admitted at lower rates than whites and blacks when racial preferences are used, with caps or quotas against Asian Ams.
ADMITTING STUDENTS WITHOUT THE USE OF "STATS" DOES NOT DECREASE ASIAN NUMBERS. RACIST CAPS AND QUOTAS AGAINST ASIANS DECREASE ASIAN NUMBERS.
Not every group is equal according to these standards or criteria. Only EQUALS are equal. You cannot create EQUALS with race preferences in admissions. You solve the problem of inequality at the k-12 level of education.
2. DIVERSITY TRANSCENDS RACE. PERIOD. THEREFORE, ONE CAN ACHIEVE A MOST DIVERSE CLASS WITH RACE BLIND ADMISSIONS.
3. "DIVERSITY is not defined by racial, ethnic, and religious proportional representation.."
THEREFORE, ONE CAN ACHIEVE A MOST DIVERSE CLASS WITH RACE BLIND ADMISSIONS.
You have not given any credible statements to rebut this point.
4. MERIT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOR OR RACE. PERIOD.
5. Admissions to an elite school is a zero-sum game.
6. One does not close the racial gaps for CULTURALLY DISADVANTAGED BLACKS in their underperformance and underachievement with race preferences in admissions by admitting underachieving and academically deficient blacks to elite colleges. Their is no evidence that this works. This is similar to "social promotion" on the k-12 level, when the academically deficient and underprepared student is promoted to the next grade.
7. You simply do not know what the FUCK you are talking about. You are entitiled to your flawed opinions and I am tired of your BULLSHIT. You have not addressed any of my points with anything credible or with any facts, references, or BONIFIED RESEARCH accepted by the academic community to back your ludicrous statements. I have highlighted your outrageous racist statements sterotypying Asian American applicants. This, in itself, has destroyed any credibity that you may have had.
8. Answer quasar's questions, which you have avoided also. How can you condone DISCRIMINATION against one group, the Asian Americans, to benefit other groups, namely blacks, AND WHITES. Simply stated, More BS. It does not take a "rocket scientist" to realize that you are "liberal" or politically correct, when this serves your own selfish needs, such as maintaining the Jewish numbers and white numbers at the expense of Asian Americans. The black numbers are a given with rase base AA. Therefore, you are a white racist "liberal" hypocrite who would screw over the Asian Americans to maintain the white numbers. Whites don't loose spaces when blacks are given spaces via racial preferences. This is clear and I have posted the stats from Brown, Harvard, UPEnn, and Stanford to verify this. Asian Americans are admitted at 60% to 70% of the white admit rates. When the politically correct situation does not serve your needs, you are a racist "conservative". Therefore, you are a racist HYPOCRITE.
YOU ARE FULL OF HOT AIR AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PROOF AND PERSAUSION. YOU ARE FUCKING IGNORANT.
I am not wasting my time anymore, since you have not rebutted any of my arguments, instead you use DOUBLETALK and DOUBLESPEAK
9. I have nothing against the Jewish numbers with them being OVERREPRESENTED by a factor of 15, because they were admitted without a cap and without prewferences, yet you are a FUCKING racist HYPOCRITE to call for caps against Asian Americans, you fucking racist hypocrite.
>> And I am not fully informed about the overrepresentation of Jews, but like I said, I never said I agreed with that. My point was ONLY in regard to affirmative action. If you want to make a point that Jews have an unfair advantage, state it THAT WAY. Your attacking AA itself only conveys a repulsion for URMs who have a cultural disadvantage that is just as great as the cultural advantage that Asians have in terms of academics. <<
This statemen from above said it all.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING, YOU RACIST HYPOCRITE?
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
10. No, JEWS DON"T HAVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. Tricky, stated, "And I am not fully informed about the overrepresentation of Jews, but like I said, I never said I agreed with that."
Well, you are such a fucking RACIST HYPOCRITE. I do not think Jews have an "unfair advantage" and I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, and Asian Americans don't have an unfair advantage. Therefore, there should be no caps on Asian Americans, for the very same reasons Jews don't have caps on them.
Well, you fucking RACIST HYPOCRITE, I do not think Jews have an "unfair advantage" and I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, and Asian Americans don't have an unfair advantage. Therefore, there should be no caps on Asian Americans, for the very same reasons Jews don't have caps on them.
Well, you fucking RACIST HYPOCRITE, I do not think Jews have an "unfair advantage" and I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, and Asian Americans don't have an unfair advantage. Therefore, there should be no caps on Asian Americans, for the very same reasons Jews don't have caps on them.
Again, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR FUCKING RACIST HEAD:
Well, you fucking RACIST HYPOCRITE, I do not think Jews have an "unfair advantage" and I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, and Asian Americans don't have an unfair advantage. Therefore, there should be no caps on Asian Americans, for the very same reasons Jews don't have caps on them.
You are so fucking racist in your arguments and with your use of DOUBLETALK and DOUBLESPEAK, spinning, turning, and misrerepresenting my posts, that you just cannot carry on a reasonable discourse. You are a waste of time.
You have no knowledge or ability for PROOF and PERSAUSION, or the ability and capabilty for rational discourse and/or debate.
YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT WITH YOUR RACIST STEREOTYPES. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159229) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 9:14 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Tricky, READ THIS The Campus Diversity Fraud
John H. McWhorter
In September, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the crude “black bonus” in the University of Georgia’s admissions policy wasn’t what the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision meant when it allowed colleges to take “diversity” into account in admissions decisions. Let’s hope that this decision spells the beginning of the end for the “diversity” argument in college admissions. It has been, from the start, an argument shot through with duplicity and bad faith. It is a craven, disingenuous, and destructive canard, antithetical to interracial harmony and black excellence—and racist besides.
The diversity imperative now so powerful on campus arose almost by chance, springing from a remark Justice Lewis Powell made in his concurrence in the Bakke decision. Allan Bakke had charged the medical school at the University of California at Davis with discrimination for twice turning him down, despite his high grades and admissions-test scores, while routinely admitting black students with C averages and poor admissions-test scores. The court found that quota systems like Davis’s were unconstitutional, but Powell’s opinion hedged slightly, asserting that it was appropriate for schools to base their admissions decisions upon a quest for a “diverse student body.” Powell’s statement provided a justification that universities, including the University of Georgia, quickly seized upon as a cover for admitting black students with significantly lower qualifications than those of white or Asian students. Instead of ending campus affirmative action, Bakke became its license.
White guilt is a dangerous and addictive drug, and for 20-plus years the Bakke decision has supported stricken higher-education administrators in their habit. Meanwhile, the diversity shibboleth has taught a generation of young Americans that black students are more important for their presence in promotional brochure photographs than for their scholastic qualifications—an essentialization now as rife among black as among white students. This message ultimately perpetuates the very underperformance that has made the fig-leaf diversity notion necessary.
The very term “diversity” craftily overshoots the actual goal in question. Mormons, paraplegics, people from Alaska, lesbians, Ayn Randians, and poor whites exert little pull on the heartstrings of admissions committees so committed to making college campuses “look like America.” The diversity that counts is brown-skinned minorities, especially African Americans.
Affirmative action at its inception in the late 1960s, when college administrators supposed that blacks’ low representation on campuses was simply a matter of discrimination, meant nothing more than opening the doors and providing some remedial help where needed. But these efforts to bring in qualified blacks ran up against the uncomfortably small number of such people in an America just past legalized segregation. Faced with those who were admitted, university professors, not surprisingly, proved unequal to the task of undoing the effects of 14 years of poor preparation in the basic skills necessary for college course work. Meanwhile, the triumph of the separatist belief in black America that scholastic achievement was a “white” endeavor rather than an American one further decreased the numbers of black students qualified for top schools, and it holds down their numbers to this day.
As a result, though Justice Powell doubtless had intended his diversity imperative to play out as a mere thumb on the scale, giving the edge to a brown-skinned candidate where his qualifications were equal to a white-skinned one’s, brute quota systems quickly came to reign on selective campuses. After my first year at Rutgers University, where I earned my bachelor’s degree in the mid-1980s, it was painfully clear to me that the black students were generally a rung below the general preparation and performance level of the white ones. Certainly there were excellent black students—but they were exceptions rather than the rule. Even as a teenager unconcerned with social policy or admissions procedures, I couldn’t but notice that black students had gotten in under some kind of quota system.
Rutgers top brass long maintained that race was used as just one of many factors, as the Bakke decision had directed. But a few years after I graduated, a student working in the admissions office blew the whistle, revealing that black students were put into a special pool and admitted according to significantly lower criteria than other students. Nor was Rutgers unique. Similar disclosures have emerged in school after school, including the University of California, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and, most recently, the University of Georgia. Even in their pro–affirmative action manifesto, The Shape of the River, William Bowen and Derek Bok admit—and painstakingly document—that this practice has been routine in selective universities across the nation for 30 years.
At the University of California at Berkeley, where I teach, the quota system was as obvious on the ground as it had been at Rutgers in the 1980s. One older white professor, an avowed leftist, confided in me that since the early 1970s black students had done badly in his classes so often that he had found himself viewing any black student who appeared on the first day of class as a potential problem. A white remedial-composition tutor observed that he had worked with so many minority students hopelessly underprepared for Berkeley-level work that he had found himself questioning the wisdom of racial preferences, despite his leftist persuasion. Professors across the country have expressed similar views to me.
Many would dismiss such observations as bias and stereotyping. The facts are otherwise. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom note in America in Black and White that black Berkeley students who enrolled in 1988 had an average SAT score below 1,000, compared with white students’ average of over 1,300. The highest quartile of black SAT scores in this class clustered at the bottom quarter of the SAT scores of all students. The high school grade average among black students was B-plus, rather than the straight-A average required of white students. Nor was this a mere Berzerk-ley aberration: in 1992, the gap in average SAT scores between black and white entrants was 150 points at Princeton, 171 at Stanford, 218 at Dartmouth, and 271 at Rice.
Graduation rates reflect this gulf in preparation. The Thernstroms document that, of the black students who entered Berkeley in 1988, 41 percent did not graduate, while only 16 percent of their white classmates did not. Bowen and Bok report that, at 28 top universities, black students in the class of 1989 were about three times more likely to drop out than white students.
Many ascribe these higher dropout rates to financial pressures rather than to the sharp deficits in high school grades and SAT scores. But the burden of proof is upon such people to identify just why grades and scores would not correlate significantly with a student’s chances of finishing college. Few have any problem seeing a causal link here when it comes to white students.
The argument that grades and scores are irrelevant to assessing a candidate defies both logic and experience. Consider the SAT. No one would argue that a student with a perfect SAT score is only a possible good match for Harvard or that a student with an abysmal SAT score was prime Harvard material. Precisely what, then, leads to the conclusion that SAT scores in between have no predictive power? In fact, as the Thernstroms show, graduation rates for black students who started at Berkeley in 1988 closely tracked their SAT scores: students with lower SATs were correspondingly less likely to get their degrees. Bowen and Bok acknowledge that SAT scores actually overpredict black students’ college performance—that is, black students do less well than their scores would predict, not better.
Faced with such hard facts, diversity fans have asserted that leadership skills, helping to put together the high school yearbook, and spunk are as relevant to assessing a student’s scholastic potential as . . . well, how they did academically in high school or how they scored on standardized tests. But aren’t leadership skills and spunk equally prevalent among white students? Surely, blacks aren’t innately perkier than whites. College-admissions committees that cheerily emphasize such extra-academic factors in evaluating black applicants basically are saying that blacks can’t compete in the truly decisive arena: the classroom. In the name of diversity, black students find themselves patronizingly exempted from serious competition.
Can we justify this exemption from standards by saying that it leads to a larger good? Supporters of campus diversity have made three broad arguments to this effect. The first is that bending the admissions rules to ensure diversity helps foster an interracial fellowship that all students will carry with them into society after they graduate. I tried to hold on to this idea for years, but in the end it just doesn’t wash.
In truth, “diverse” college campuses are among the most racially balkanized places in America. Separate black fraternities and sororities thrive. They first emerged in the early twentieth century, when white fraternities and sororities didn’t welcome black applicants. Today, black Greek organizations are thoroughly unenthusiastic toward whites. Reinforcing this separatism, some universities host all-black graduation ceremonies—the idea, apparently, being that one’s achievement is less a human or American one than a black one. In addition, black students typically cluster in their own section of the dining hall, throw their own parties, have their own theme houses, and leave college with a separatist ideology that they often didn’t hold when they first arrived. Interracial fellowship this is not.
Nor is one likely to find much interracial camaraderie in African-American studies classes. Supporters of such classes say that they help blacks learn about their rich heritage, but in practice, they often double as exercises in stoking hatred of the White Man. At Stanford, I was a teaching assistant in a predominantly black class on Black English. In itself, the subject encompasses much more than mere street slang—extending to grammatical structure, literature, and educational issues. Yet, class discussion devolved into visceral dismissal of whites so often that one white student complained to the professor that he felt any opinions he ventured beyond genuflections to black victimhood were unwelcome—and he was right. When, in a course I taught at Berkeley on the history of black musical theater, a female white student observed that rap lyrics were misogynistic, several black students dressed her down so vehemently that they left her in tears.
Confronted with such racial enmity, white students understandably start shunning blacks. John H. Bunzel documents in Race Relations on Campus: Stanford Students Speak Out that white Stanford students who endured constant vague accusations of racism from black students often became less interested in interracial outreach than they had been as freshmen—a trend I’ve noticed on other campuses where I’ve taught or visited.
For the black student who doesn’t toe the separatist line but really seeks interracial fellowship, university life can be uncomfortable. Blacks quickly discover that black authenticity means hunkering down behind a racial barricade, glaring angrily at the symbols of white “hegemony” that supposedly surround them, and believing that they are eternal victims in their own land. Edgy conversations with other black students who question the authenticity of one’s own “blackness” become a regular feature of life. Bunzel reports that black Stanford students told him they were expected to “talk black, dress black, think black, and certainly date black.” A black student who joins a traditionally white frat or sorority will face accusations that he or she is a self-hating sellout. A black acquaintance once told me that the overwhelming hostility she met with during her college years from black students scornful of her white friendships was far worse than any white racism she experienced at the time.
Scratch the surface, it seems, and diversity really means maintaining one’s separatist missiles at the ready. After black University of California regent Ward Connerly helped launch an ultimately successful campaign to outlaw racial preferences in U-Cal admissions a few years back, some black locals formed a committee called “Citizens Against Ward Connerly.” At one event, a committee representative joked, “Ward Connerly wants the University of California to be all vanilla—and I don’t like vanilla.” She sought audience approval, but given that at least half of her listeners were white, all she got was some nervous laughter. She quickly backtracked, adding, “I like to have some mix-ins—chips, nuts.” Her initial remark, though, revealed the truth: the people so furiously committed to campus diversity aren’t interested in a color-blind America. Their real goal is to ensure that the privileges of a college education don’t distract black students from the urgent task of keeping the fires of black alienation burning.
Since the notion that diversity encourages interracial bonding is so patently false, its defenders frequently make a second, somewhat different, argument. Racial preferences in admissions, they maintain, are crucial in order to ensure, if not fellowship, then at least exposure to different ethnic and racial groups, teaching a valuable lesson about the many equally valid viewpoints in a multicultural society. This view received official imprimatur in Powell’s Bakke concurrence, where the justice asserted that universities would benefit from selecting “those students [i.e., dark-skinned minorities] who will contribute most to the robust exchange of ideas.”
Given that Bakke concerned a medical school, just how being black qualifies one to make especially vigorous observations about surgical incisions and metabolic pathways is unclear, but never mind. The real, if implicit, assumption behind the exposure idea is that whites will learn about—and learn to respect—blacks from the other side of the tracks, whom they supposedly find so alien, despicable, and threatening. But in practice, what white students often learn at a university that lets in blacks under the bar is that blacks may not be as sharp as whites. It’s difficult to imagine how even the most well-intentioned white students could have avoided such a conclusion at Rutgers when I studied there in the 1980s.
More fundamentally, the “exposure” argument rests on a falsehood: that black students typically come from disadvantaged circumstances, unfamiliar to their white classmates. In fact, at selective schools, inner-city blacks have been vanishingly rare since the late 1960s, when a handful of top schools briefly—and unsuccessfully—experimented with admitting unqualified urban blacks to see if they could cope. But among black students in the last class admitted to Berkeley under the old racial preferences regime, more than 65 percent came from households earning at least $40,000 a year; the parents of 40 percent earned at least $60,000 yearly. Of blacks admitted in 1989 to the 28 selective universities that Bowen and Bok survey, just 14 percent came from homes earning $22,000 or less.
Precisely what traits do middle-class black kids display that a white student must learn about so that he won’t wash out in the management job he starts after graduation? I’ve found that middle-class black students asked to list a few such traits usually draw a blank. Even if many blacks from the ‘hood did show up at selective schools, however, why would learning about their cultural traits be vital to white students’ education? In African-American studies courses on the same campuses, blacks regularly—and rightly—decry the stereotype that all African Americans are poor. Surely a firsthand, four-year tutorial in the vibrancy of ghetto life would simply reinforce that stereotype. Poverty is a tragedy, not a life-style.
If neither the hope for greater interracial harmony nor the idea of whites learning from blacks justifies diversity policies, there is, finally, the moral argument that blacks deserve compensation for their tragic history. Centuries of disenfranchisement and segregation bar most blacks from really qualifying for top schools, affirmative action’s defenders charge, so it’s the right thing to do to let them in through the back door. “How, without racial preferences, can we make up for the fact that whites benefited from socially ingrained preferences for centuries?” furiously asked one black man at a talk I gave recently. Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer, reversing his longtime opposition to race-based admissions, claims that whites “owe” blacks due to past injustices. For all their sincerity, however, people like Glazer don’t understand that this tit-for-tat defense of racial preferences bars the only path that can lead us beyond our racial dilemmas.
It’s indisputable that historical disenfranchisement has left many blacks ill equipped to compete even when ladders to success beckon, as they do today—partly because of the economic and social obstacles to achievement that disadvantaged status entails and, even more, because long-term oppression helped create a black cultural identity opposed to mainstream success. For blacks to rise to the top, they must learn new skills and cultivate new attitudes. Those who’ve grown up under conditions that don’t offer direct paths to accomplishment have the task—unfair, but hardly limited to blacks—of discovering the knack of turning lemons into lemonade, as oppressed groups in America have done for centuries. A group that believes that mainstream achievement is inauthentic will have to refashion its self-conception if it is ever to get ahead in the only society it will ever call home.
Lowered standards are antithetical to both of these vital goals. A fundamental tenet of economics and psychology is that most people will do their best only if they have the incentive to do so. Lowered standards have robbed blacks of that incentive. One can only learn to ride a bicycle by mastering the subtle muscular poise of the endeavor oneself; as long as the training wheels remain on, one isn’t really riding the bike.
The point here isn’t moral but logical: black students will only reach their full potential if the affirmative-action safety net is withdrawn and they’re required to strive for excellence. Perhaps the most sobering reality black Americans face today is that even our tragic history cannot exempt us from this hard truth of the human condition. Asian students have never had the illusion that there was any path up other than showing their best stuff, come hell or high water, which is why so many of them excel. Students, though, who daily hear the message, “You only have to do pretty well to get into a top school” will—a few naturally gifted stars excepted—only do pretty well. To elevate diversity over true excellence condemns black students to mediocrity and is, quite simply, racist.
To call today’s university administrations racist may seem a bit strong. Yet what else should we make of university officials’ apparent belief that blacks are the only group in American history incapable of overcoming social and historical obstacles? So troubled is University of California president Richard Atkinson by the fall in black and Hispanic admissions to his flagship Berkeley and UCLA campuses since the end of racial preferences in the system that he has proposed eliminating the SAT from admissions requirements altogether.
Never mind that, after the overturning of preferences, black admissions fell only on these two top campuses, rising at several other UC schools; and that the University of California is now trying diligently to prepare minority students in middle and high schools throughout the state to submit competitive dossiers to UC. Atkinson is so skeptical that the new race-blind regime will ever bear fruit that he doesn’t consider it worth waiting to see what might happen over time. Instead, all he sees is the “re-segregation” that black and Latino faculty and administrators and their white fellow travelers warned about when the battle over preferences was raging. Implicitly, he seems to think that Berkeley and UCLA are the only California colleges worth attending, so that black students who don’t get into them have no choice but to fail.
This is offensive nonsense. Sure, over the past few years, many black kids who would have gone to Berkeley under the old system now attend UC Santa Cruz, UC Davis, or other solid second-rank schools. But so what? They’re much more likely to thrive on these campuses than if they found themselves, unprepared, at legendarily demanding Berkeley and UCLA. And isn’t Atkinson’s conviction that the new system re-creates the era of Orville Faubus strangely dismissive of California’s non-elite state schools for the man entrusted with their stewardship?
Equally important, under the new race-blind system, black students know that they are as qualified academically as other students on campus. Armed with a confidence based on reality, black students will be more comfortable in white company and less likely to compensate for feelings of inferiority by retreating to their own section of the dining hall.
Affirmative-action supporters retort that under-qualified black students must be admitted to top schools, because the prestige of such institutions and the connections one makes attending them are essential to success in later life. This claim doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Journalist James Fallows notes in a recent piece in The Atlantic that “the four richest people in America, all of whom made rather than inherited their wealth, are a dropout from Harvard, a dropout from the University of Illinois, a dropout from Washington State University, and a graduate of the University of Nebraska.” Top universities, he adds, rarely show up on the résumés of congressmen, Nobel laureates, industry leaders, and even U.S. presidents. As for blacks, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom show that, of today’s African-American congressmen, army officers, recent Ph.D.s, MacArthur Foundation genius-award winners, and top business officials, only a tiny sliver attended elite colleges.
None of this is rocket science. Every college administrator knows that diversity is really a code word for “at least 5 percent black faces with a good sprinkling of Latinos,” and that this outcome is attainable only through quotas. Racial preferences continue to receive protection from the diversity fig leaf. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon. The question, “Aren’t you in favor of diversity?” today means, “Don’t you like black people?”—and nothing chills most thinking white Americans more than the fear of being deemed racist. At the same time, many blacks cheer preferences under the misguided impression that racism is the only possible cause of unequal performance, and thus they remain blind to the importance of the perseverance and individual initiative that will truly succeed in fostering black excellence.
A university culture truly committed to erasing the sins of the past would champion diversity in its true sense, infusing its discourse on race with a range of views wider than variations on victimhood. Since 1978, diversity has served as a flimsy and evasive perversion of justice. It has helped no one, least of all black students. It’s high time we swept it into the dustbin of history.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159250) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 10:08 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building You know what? I'm SICK of your pathetic, ridiculous whining and crying over "discrimination" and of your foul mouth shooting insults and personal attacks to anyone to make up for your complete lack of true arguments. You’re just a disgruntled, mediocre Asian reject. And stop saying you graduated from an Ivy. Should we take your word for it? All evidence proves otherwise: (a) You're angry beyond reason, (b) your reasoning skills are inferior, and (c) you have major flaws of character and integrity that would be evident to ANYONE reading any piece of writing you could submit. So YOU ARE AN IVY REJECT, and you won't get anything by flaming here and calling names to people who have been more successful than yourself.
You keep stating that I have no arguments. I DO HAVE ARGUMENTS. My arguments are the SAME arguments as those stressed by the Ivies and top institutions in the US. Diversity of BACKGROUNDS, LIFE STYLES, LIFE EXPERIENCE AND CULTURE are MAJOR factors to make for a class at any top college and university. You are a complete LIAR when you say that Asians possess all those traits. WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT ASIANS ARE GIFTED IN EVERYTHING BEYOND STUDY HABITS IMPOSED BY THEIR PARENTS FROM AGE 2??? SHOW PROOF!!
You, on the other hand, have REFUSED AGAIN AND AGAIN to state WHAT IS DIVERSITY??? Your definitions of diversity so far have been: (a) Diversity is beyond race. (b) Asians are diverse, they are not only math and engineering majors. (c) The UC system doesn’t cap Asians --- they are diverse!
And then you claim I’m full of shit?? Just listen to your own retarded self. YOUR DEFINION OF DIVERSITY IS: ASIANS ASIANS ASIANS ASIANS ASIANS.
Now get lost.
I won't continue to argue this with you. My last argument to you is:
Nobody cares. You will get nowhere. MOST ASIAN AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH YOU. The only ones who will ever agree with you are the disgruntled REJECTS, and they will get nowhere.
Get lost, loser. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159439) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 10:27 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: RACIST HYPOCRITE Two words for you,Tricky
RACIST HYPOCRITE.
And you have also avoided quasar's post and questions.
And you have avoided Prof. John McWhorter's essay, "The Campus Diversity Fraud"
You are the FRAUD. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159514) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 10:44 AM Author: Boyish Set Tricky said, >> My last argument to you is: Nobody cares. You will get nowhere. MOST ASIAN AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH YOU. The only ones who will ever agree with you are the disgruntled REJECTS, and they will get nowhere. Get lost, loser.<<
Reject? Quite presumptuous of you.
You are the loser and reject.
I hold a bachelor's and a doctorate degree from an illustrious Ivy. My wife holds her bachelor's and two graduate degrees from from another Ivy. My siblings and cousins and our grandparents hold their degrees and doctorates from Ivies and elites, including Stanford and MIT.
Really, some more anecdotes and bullshit. Most Asians Americans DO NOT disagree with me. There was a study done by the the "Committee of 100" of Chinese Americans which proves this. It can be accessed on their website. Did you do a statistically sound survey to verify that "most Asian Americans disagree" with me or is this some more bullshit anecdotes??
That's going to be your downfall. Nobody cared about the Jews either, you RACIST HYPOCRITE.
Jews said, NEVER AGAIN. I care, and I say FUCK YOU!!
Tricky also said, >> Your definitions of diversity so far have been:
(a) Diversity is beyond race.
(b) Asians are diverse, they are not only math and engineering majors.
(c) The UC system doesn’t cap Asians --- they are diverse! <<
You could say exactly the same for the Jews, yet Jews are 33% of Harvard and 25% of all the Ivies for 2% of the population with no quota or cap, yet you condone the RCAIST CAPS on Asian Americans at 14% of the Ivies for 4% of the American population.
You haven't answered ONE QUESTION yet, because you have no credible answer, bullshitter.
Here it is again, YOUR HYPOCRISY, your contradiction with your bullshit
===============================================
9. I have nothing against the Jewish numbers with them being OVERREPRESENTED by a factor of 15, because they were admitted without a cap and without prewferences, yet you are a FUCKING racist HYPOCRITE to call for caps against Asian Americans, you fucking racist hypocrite.
>> And I am not fully informed about the overrepresentation of Jews, but like I said, I never said I agreed with that. My point was ONLY in regard to affirmative action. If you want to make a point that Jews have an unfair advantage, state it THAT WAY. Your attacking AA itself only conveys a repulsion for URMs who have a cultural disadvantage that is just as great as the cultural advantage that Asians have in terms of academics. <<
This statemen from above said it all.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING, YOU RACIST HYPOCRITE?
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE JEWISH NUMBERS IN THE IVIES OR NOT(33% OF HARVARD) ???? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
=========================================
And the next point, again.
10. No, JEWS DON"T HAVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. Tricky, stated, "And I am not fully informed about the overrepresentation of Jews, but like I said, I never said I agreed with that."
Well, you are such a fucking RACIST HYPOCRITE. I do not think Jews have an "unfair advantage" and I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, and Asian Americans don't have an unfair advantage. Therefore, there should be no caps on Asian Americans, for the very same reasons Jews don't have caps on them.
Well, you fucking RACIST HYPOCRITE, I do not think Jews have an "unfair advantage" and I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, and Asian Americans don't have an unfair advantage. Therefore, there should be no caps on Asian Americans, for the very same reasons Jews don't have caps on them.
Well, you fucking RACIST HYPOCRITE, I do not think Jews have an "unfair advantage" and I have no problems with the Jewish numbers, and Asian Americans don't have an unfair advantage. Therefore, there should be no caps on Asian Americans, for the very same reasons Jews don't have caps on them.
Again, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR FUCKING RACIST HEAD.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2159597) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 2:50 PM Author: Boyish Set 1. Black children from the wealthiest families with incomes of $100k/year have mean SAT scores lower than Asian and white children from families below the poverty line with incomes of less than $20k/year.
2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower mean SAT scores than Asian and white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
We know that test scores go up with family income. They also improve with socioeconomic status. Both trends are observed within all ethnic and racial groups. But before you blame income and socioeconomic status for the test score gaps, consider this:
Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.
The table below shows math SAT scores increase with family income for both whites and blacks, black students from families earning more than $70,000 (1995 dollars) score lower than white students whose families earned less than $10,000. This chart also shows more of the same for the verbal SAT. Here too, the wealthiest blacks score below the poorest whites.
You will discover that Asians mostly sit on top of the heap; that whites, Mexican Americans and blacks follow in that order. Some details prove interesting. For example, whites enjoy a verbal advantage over Asians that disappears at high levels of income and social advantage. Regrettably, the College Board no longer discloses these data. In 1996, they stopped publishing performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
SOURCE from the College Board:
1995 SAT Scores vs. Family Income
------------Whte----Blac----AsAm----MexA--
------------M---V---M---V---M---V---M---V- ---$0-10k--460 409 355 320 482 343 386 330 $10k-$20k--459 418 369 337 500 363 403 349 $20k-$30k--471 428 382 352 518 397 420 369 $30k-$40k--478 433 393 362 528 415 431 384 $40k-$50k--488 439 405 375 537 432 446 399 $50k-$60k--498 446 414 382 549 444 456 409 $60k-$70k--506 453 415 385 558 453 458 415 $70k+ -----533 475 442 407 595 476 478 430
Legend:
White= Whte, Black= Blac Asian-American= AsAm, Mexican-American= MexA
SAT I Math= M, SAT I Verbal= V
=======================================
Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
Verbal SAT scores of both blacks and whites increase with the educational attainments of their parents. However, black children of parents with graduate degrees score lower than the white children whose parents have a high school diploma or less.
The chart below shows, respectively, how math and verbal SAT scores for blacks and whites vary with parental levels of education. In both cases, black children of parents with graduate degrees score lower than white children whose parents have a high-school diploma or less.
1995 SAT Scores vs. Parental Education by Race and Ethnic Group
Source from the College Board
------------------Whte----Blac----AsAm---MexA--
-----------------M---V---M---V---M--V--M---V- Less HS diploma 418 374 347 308 478 338 389 331 More HS diploma 459 414 371 340 502 382 422 376 ---Assoc degree 472 425 384 354 502 398 435 390 ---Bache degree 513 460 409 379 550 426 468 420 ---Gradu degree 545 490 438 406 592 482 479 430
Legend:
White= Whte, Black= Blac Asian-American= AsAm, Mexican-American= MexA
SAT I Math= M, SAT I Verbal= V (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2160842) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2005 3:12 PM Author: Boyish Set Here a post from the poster named, "Chinaman" on another forum:
I am not a racist but I am finding that liberals are bent to destory this country by playing games. Then right wingers counter it. Why not go in the middle? So that we have sense in discussing instead of destroying people's career.
This country is getting more and more into liberal mode. Every one is claiming to be a vicitm. Then my question is who is master?
You claim that SAT is wrong for URMs. What about poor people who learn how to speak English and have no previous experience. Should they be admitted to school without taking enlish requirements. Do you think my kids and I are victim of government conspiracy. I do not think so. My kids scored very high on SAT while I was taking English classes. I could not help them. Why beacuse we wanted to succeed. Who offered help to us none but people who were willing to work hard and that includes people with all kind of races.
To my amazement everone wants to claim that they have been harmed by system. Why kids are not satying home and reading and preparing for classes. Why waste time on mall when you know that you can study and get scholarships out. Theen the fun loving kids call these kinds of kids nerds and make fun of them. Later on being an adult, the kids who do not want to study and work hard claim to be vicitm of the sytem. Kids whose parents immigrate from Africa, they seems to be doing fine in SAT. Why these people do not claim to eliminate SATs.
As far as I think in 90% cases there is no victim only people who made wrong choices. By claiming that SAT discriminate you are playing again in wrong hands. There is girl in IMO olympiad who has beaten so many kids by winning IMO gold medal. She is not a victim as she is willing to work hard.
This guy summer has it wrong but should not be kicked out. Remeber I am not a victim and you are not a victim. We have just our choices. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2160991) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 2:53 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building How the fuck could you have possibly earned a doctorate? You're one of the most retarded posters I've ever argued with, and I've argued with lots. How come you have a wife? I wouldn't think any woman with self-respect would marry some shithead chink like you. How old are you? You're probably just a 55 year old Chinese immigrant whose kids didn't get into HYP and you still can't get over it.
You know what you are?
YOU ARE A RACIST HYPOCRITE PRESTIGE WHORE REJECT!!
So you hold a doctorate and your wife a bunch of "masters"? That's nothing. I hold six doctorates and I earned a nobel prize. Your accomplishments are nothing.
And actually, I was thinking that we should increase the Asian cap from 16% to a 10%. What do you think? Going from 16% down to 10% would be actually a pretty good number! That way, Hispanics could raise to a 14% and blacks up to 16%, that would be a lot more diverse!! ANd Asians would have the amazing opportunity to take part in more state universities, so there would be diversity everywhere! And Asians would be less prestige whores than they currently are.
Good night, racist hypocrite. By the way, why did you get a doctorate? Did you do anything with what you learned? It seems like you haven't. You could be doing some research, or working and making big bucks. But you are instead unemployed and a stay-at-home single, rejected by all ivies, and spend your time whining and trolling a college website. Do you work at a Chinese fast food part-time? My advice to you would be to shut the fuck up. All you're accomplishing is giving Asians a bad name. Not all Asians are lik you, why are you trying to make them all look bad?
Disclaimer: No offense to other Asians, all the comments herein apply to the type of defective Asian breed that hero belongs to. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2164787) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 9:32 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: TRICKY, YOU WORD IS ALSO SHIT. WHY ARE YOU BACK? Tricky said from 2 posts ago, >> Now get lost....I won't continue to argue this with you.....My last argument.. <<
Well, I an not lost. You are the one who is lost.
HEY TRICKY, YOU WORD IS ALSO SHIT. WHY ARE YOU BACK? You are a FUCKING LIAR ALSO, besides being A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
You were unable to answer any of my questions, because you have no credible answers, proving that you are a RACIST HYYPOCRITE!!
Tricky also said, >> Disclaimer: No offense to other Asians, all the comments herein apply to the type of defective Asian breed that hero belongs to. <<
You fucking RACIST HYPOCRCRITE, you have offended every Asian American and every decent human being, regardless of their race or ethnicity, who are not racists, with your RACIST STEREOTYPES of Asian Americans. Just listen to yourself rant and rave about Asian Americanss. They don't live in China and they are not all quiet and passive and they are not all science/math geeks.
I have not once mentioned your race or ethnicity, simply because it is irrelevant. You are the FUCK who harps on race and ethnicity, you FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRRITE!!!
I have not once mentioned what degrees you have or not have, and you obviously have none, either from an Ivy League school or from Podunk U. All your racist and anti-Asian American statements are on the record. I have highlighted and quoted them, many times before, you blind IGNORANT FOOL.
I really don't give a FLYING FUCK what your race is, you FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. I have highlighted and quoted your racist statements, many times before, you blind IGNORANT FOOL, yet you continually mention my race and the Asian Americans in racist stereotypes.
Just listen to yourself expouse your bigotry and prejudices in your posts, you imbecile.
You have no analytic and quantitative abilities. ZERO. You should have taken a course in Logics, in addition to a course in Proof and Persausion. This course is given at Phillips Academy, Andover and similar courses are given at Phillips Exeter Academy and St. Pauls' School. Also, a course in the hard sciences, such as college Physics would also help in giving you some quantitative abilities, since you have none.
As a holder of two degrees, an A.B. (abbreviated in Latin) degree, which was written entirely in Latin on the "parchment", and a doctorate from an illustrious Ivy, you just can't measure up, you imbecile.
Tricky also said >> And actually, I was thinking that we should increase the Asian cap from 16% to a 10%. What do you think? Going from 16% down to 10% would be actually a pretty good number! That way, Hispanics could raise to a 14% and blacks up to 16%, that would be a lot more diverse!! ANd Asians would have the amazing opportunity to take part in more state universities, so there would be diversity everywhere! And Asians would be less prestige whores than they currently are. <<
Now you are really FUCKING YOURSELF, imbecile. You have no logic or debating abilities what so ever. You are the one who should go to the TTT, less competitive or less selective schools, or "state universities", because you obviously belong there. Yet, you tell more stellar Asian Americans to go there, instead of less stellar, academically deficient and underprepared students to go there. You can't even realize that the best state schools want also the most prepared and stellar students, without race preferences, and that's why YOU WILL NEVER BE ADMITTED TO A TOP STATE UNIVERSITY. You can't be admitted to a "state university" because admissions is not based on race. The best state schools have NO RACIAL PREFERENCES. The only way you can be admitted is by a race preference, because if you do not use race, you would never be admitted to an Ivy. You would SURELY never be admitted to the best state schools.
You and your bigoted types told JEWS, at the Ivies and elite schools, to go to the "state schools" and LESS SELECTIVE AND LESS COMPETITIVE SCHOOLS, which did not have quotas against Jews, not so long ago, and Jews said NEVER AGAIN, because they deserved to be in the Ivies, based on their hard work and merit, by meeting the standards and criteria for admission WITHOUT THE USE OF NUMERICAL QUOTAS AGAINST THEM. Asian Americans also belong in the Ivies without quotas for exactly the very same reasons Jews are in the Ivies and Elite colleges, but quotas or caps exist against Asian Americans. Fucking racist hypocrites, such as yourself, Tricky, are in favor of numerical quotas against Asian Americans, I say FUCK YOU, in addition to NEVER AGAIN!!
BTW, numerical racial and ethnic quotas are immoral, unjust, demented, UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to the 14th Amendment, and therefore ILLEGAL.
Tricky, you simply do not know WHAT THE FUCK (WTF) YOU ARE SAYING!! You want numerical quotas. Even the US Supreme Court or any Court in America never authorized the use of NUMERICAL QUOTAS, you fucking ignorant imbecile
You do not have a sufficient core of knowledge to speak on this topic. You have been also exposed as being IGNORANT, besides being a RACIST HYPOCRITE!!
==================================================
Please the following again,
Tricky said from 2 posts ago, >> Now get lost....I won't continue to argue this with you.....My last argument.. <<
HEY TRICKY, YOU WORD IS ALSO SHIT. WHY ARE YOU BACK? You are a FUCKING LIAR ALSO, besides being A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
==================================================
Tricky said from 2 posts ago, >> Now get lost....I won't continue to argue this with you.....My last argument.. <<
HEY TRICKY, YOU WORD IS ALSO SHIT. WHY ARE YOU BACK? You are a FUCKING LIAR ALSO, besides being A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE.
==================================================
Tricky said from 2 posts ago, >> Now get lost....I won't continue to argue this with you.....My last argument.. <<
HEY TRICKY, YOU WORD IS ALSO SHIT. WHY ARE YOU BACK? You are a FUCKING LIAR ALSO, besides being A FUCKING RACIST HYPOCRITE. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2165356) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 10:38 AM Author: Boyish Set Tricky, answer quasar's questions, which you have avoided also. How can you condone DISCRIMINATION against one group, the Asian Americans, to benefit other groups, namely blacks, AND WHITES. Simply stated, More BS. It does not take a "rocket scientist" to realize that you are "liberal" or politically correct, when this serves your own selfish needs, such as maintaining the Jewish numbers and white numbers at the expense of Asian Americans. The black numbers are a given with race base AA. Therefore, you are a white racist "liberal" hypocrite who would screw over the Asian Americans to maintain the white numbers. Whites don't loose spaces when blacks are given spaces via racial preferences. This is clear and I have posted the stats from Brown, Harvard, UPEnn, and Stanford to verify this. Asian Americans are admitted at 60% to 70% of the white admit rates. When the politically correct situation does not serve your needs, you are a racist "conservative". Therefore, you are a racist HYPOCRITE!
=========================================================
Quasar said:
If you have statistics to demonstrate that this desire for racial diversity outweighs the negatives associated with discriminating against Asian-Americans, than you have a good case.
I suggest that this is the main point that has been largely ignored throughout the discussion. The question at stake is: does the pursit of diversity warrant discrimination against a racial group? Your questions (that you demand that hero address) assume that the answer to this question is "yes," but I have yet to see substantial reasoning or proof why this is the case.
In short:
1. We agree that Asian Americans face discrimination under a quota system
2. We agree that in the short-term future (barring any significant cultural shifts) that discriminating against Asian Americans is one way to increase racial diversity on college campuses.
We must therefore decide whether 2) is an ethical policy or not, before answering your inquiries.
(Re; Anti- Asian American racist quotas in the Ivies)
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2165472) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 11:14 AM Author: Boyish Set Hey Tricky, Jay Mathews of the Washington Post said,
"But there is one part of his argument, a reference to a sad era in American history, that is hard to ignore. Many selective colleges before World War II had quotas on Jews. They turned down many brilliant applicants in favor of non-Jewish prep school students with lesser records. They didn't call this striving for diversity, but it was a perverse form of affirmative action, and it left a bitter taste for decades."
Jay Mathews is also a Harvard College graduate. Today, Harvard does not turn down stellar and brilliant Jewish students, but Harvard turns down stellar and brilliant Asian Americans in this demented bigoted zero sum game of race based AA, which will leave even a more bitter taste for decades. Harvard is 33% Jewish for 2% of the American population.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2165520) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 3:09 PM Author: appetizing flatulent lettuce Subject: Oh My, the great Ed Chin found new hunting grounds Hey Doctor Chin, why don't tell the board about how a great Columbia graduate like you loses his medical license and has nothing better to do than spending his posting BS on boards and arguing with kids.
Was that the reason you told Jay Matthews you value your privacy. All he had to do was google you and add medical board to find more about you. I am sure he would impressed to read your poetry on yet another board.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2166511) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 3:46 PM Author: Salmon outnumbered fat ankles legal warrant ok. This has got to stop. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2166686) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 3:52 PM Author: nubile lascivious marketing idea sandwich Subject: Mr. Chin, when are you going to recognize that enough is enough? (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2166716) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 5:21 PM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Former Doctor Chin!! So it's been you all along! How stupid of me, who mentioned that the only two people who shared your views were you and Chin. YOU are Chin! And it is YOU who can stand as the best tangible proof which runs counter to your own argument. You might have gotten into the Ivy through your "perfect stats", obtained the grades, padded a resume with EC's, and even fooled the system to get accepted into med school. But beyond that, what were you capable of doing after the stats game was over? You could not perform your duties as a professional. What does that prove about the so-called brilliant, "superior", "intellectual" Asian? They're not so brilliant.. So the myth about stats is PARTLY true: STATS CAN PROVE YOU WILL GRADUATE, and PARTLY false: THEY WON'T GUARANTEE SUPERIOR, EVEN MEDIOCRE PERFORMANCE IN THE REAL WORLD!!! And what's more important in the end?? Your perfect stats mean NOTHING if you are a fuck up in the real world. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD FOR ONCE!!!
STATS =/= MERIT. THEY WILL NEVER BE EQUALS, PREDICTORS OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO IT. MERIT IS NOT ONE-DIMENSIONAL, IT HAS THOUSANDS OF DIMENSIONS!!
Who figured out this was the actual Chin, charged for gross negligence, gross incompetence and fraud, having been forced to surrender his medical license?
This is a great piece of information for those who think that stats are the be-all, end-all of "success for life."
Doctor Chin, you have done a great deed by teaching us all a lesson about Asian achievement.
-----------o-------------
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT IN THE MATTER OF ED MING CHIN, M.D. STATEMENT OF CHARGES
ED MING CHIN, M.D., the Respondent, was authorized to practice medicine in New York State on March 30, 1979, by the issuance of license number 137503 by the New York State Education Department.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Respondent treated Patient A from on or about November 2, to on or about June 30, 1996, at his office, 1317 Elizabeth Street, New York 10013. Respondent's care and treatment of Patient A failed to meet acceptable standards of medical care, in that:
1. Responded performed EKGs without adequate medical justification. 2. Respondent administered numerous steroid injections without adequate medical justification. 3. Respondent failed to adequately evaluate complaints of chest pain. 4. Respondent failed to adequately evaluate and treat chronic bronchitis. 5. Respondent failed to adequately evaluate and treat musculoskeletal complaints. 6. Respondent failed to maintain records, which accurately reflect the care and treatment of the patient.
SPECIFICATIONS FIRST THROUGH THIRD SPECIFICATIONS:
1. GROSS NEGLIGENCE Respondent is charged with gross negligence on a particular occasion in violation of New York Education Law.
2. GROSS INCOMPETENCE Respondent is charged with gross incompetence on a particular occasion in violation of New York Education Law.
NEGLIGENCE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION Respondent is charged with negligence on more than one occasion in violation of New York Education Law.
INCOMPETENCE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION Respondent is charged with incompetence on more than one occasion in violation of New York Education Law
3. FRAUD Respondent in is charged with practicing the profession fraudulently in violation of New York Education Law.
http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/0/ac11f7cf085df0dd85256a4a0047c8e1/$FILE/lc137503.pdf (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2167040) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2005 5:42 PM Author: light big goyim associate YAY! This madness is over.
GO AWAY HERO A.K.A. DR. CHIN! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2167128) |
|
Date: February 24th, 2005 2:16 AM Author: exhilarant resort Subject: olivia, dr, chin, rwc, Trickmaster
So Olivia has come out of her lair in the NYT ( I heard she no longer is the moderator of the NYT Education Forum or one of its subforums ) to confront her nemesis Ed Chin. Olivia aka Mistress of Censorship is a typical white female liberal bent on censoring ideas that are contrary to her senseless ideology of racial preferences and other kinds of preferences. She think she is going to heaven with this kind of nonsense, and doing her fellow human beings a service with her advocacy of this leftist garbage, she is simply dead wrong. Anyway she wants attention and is in dire need of stimulating intellectual company. Unable to produce any ideas that are original, her response in her stewardship of the NYT Education Forum subgroup was to suppress opinions contrary to her ideological bent. I do not know anything about the personal life of Ed Chin, but most of what he is saying in this forum is true. There is indeed a widespread use of qoutas in the private schools like the Ivies and the liberal arts schools against Asian Americans. I have heard all the justifications for these qoutas mouted by adcoms, by school officals and people like RWC and Trickmaster and they simply are absolute rubbish. Diversity for Diversity's sake is not going to advance the cause of mankind is simply baldfaced unadulterated rubbish. In many universities of the world, the populations are homogenous, usually of one ethnic group . Like people everywhere, there are good and bad people. It does not mean there no human beings there that are tolerant of other people's ideas or are not desirous of improving the lot of mankind in those universities. I don't like rehashing the stuff that I had written in the NYT Education Forum , but it seems dealing with people like Trickmaster or RWC, I need to say them again. The Ivies and the private schools are the worst practitioners of these qoutas coupled with their obscene hypocrisy. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2197183) |
|
Date: February 24th, 2005 5:09 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Now what, Dr. Chin, MD?
Is this a serious case of OCD you just can't control? Or why the need to return and continue to beat a dead horse by resurrecting this dead-end subject?
It's all a matter of opinion. People don't agree with you, end of the story. You don't like racial diversity? Other people do, including HYP and their Asians. You don't like Asian quotas? Well, too bad, because universities need to impose limits in their amount of admits, and Asians are not all "multi-dimensional", "meet the holistic criteria", "have overcome poverty and language barriers." Asian Americans don't have language barriers, as they are AMERICANS and were born here. And if they are so "smart" why are their parents (second or higher, generation Americans) "dirt poor"? The whole argument collapses in itself. Are you merely referring to the newly arrived Chinese immigrants who DO have language barriers and financial problems? Most of them are International students, otherwise, they are equal to the newly arrived Africans, the "new African Americans", and they should not benefit from any form of admission at US universities.
Ivies and private schools are the "worst practicioners" of quotas and are hypocritical? Who said you HAD to go to one of those hypocritical private schools? NOBODY!! Don't like it? Don't apply.
Go to UC Berkeley or U. of Texas. Or what, the prestige is just too strong to be able to bear the thought of not going to HYP?
Now reveal the actual reason why you're here. Did your son get rejected? Or your daughter? Why do you want another Chin at an Ivy and later in medical school? Chin should have never gone to Med school, but rather obtained a PhD in Math or physics. Then he would have never lost his license. Why did Chin become an MD if he wasn't fully qualified in terms of rapport and receptiveness to his patients?
Two-word answer: Prestige whore.
Give up Chin, the game's over. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2197853) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2005 1:43 AM Author: exhilarant resort Subject: trickmaster's nonsense bag of tricks
You are a real ignoramus aren't you? Your responses truly reveal the level of your ignorance and stupidity. I am not DR. Chin, I never had a kid who went to Groton or Philips Andover. I am not aspiring to get my kid to HY unlike your perhaps. Who told you that the majority of Asians in the universities are international students .? That's plain rubbish. Who told you that Asian parents are all dirt poor ? Yes some are dirt poor , but some are doctors , engineers , accountants etc. What is this nonsense you are talking about regarding the adcoms of the IVies and the liberal arts schools? The only "holistic criteria " that they are concerned about in admtting applicants is to whether that applicant will help the school survive, you idiot. What is this rubbish you are talking about Asian students not being " multidimensioanl "? Only in the eyes I guess of these rotten Ivy adcoms. You have never been to schools here in CAlifornia or the public high schools of Houston, Chicago or NYC either in the suburbs or the inner city. The level of your ignorance is so appaling.You and RWC could not take on hero ( I guess he took his handle from the Zhang Yimou movie of the same name, Zhang also was the auteur of that trilogy of classics ," Raise the Red lantern ", "ju Dou ", and "Red Sorghum", bet you did not even know that just like that moron Olivia), that's why you want to pull that professional misconduct case on Chin. Does not really matter, I do not know anything about his professional or personal life, nor do I agree with everything that he says, he however says many things that are true.Keep reading the Physician's Desk Reference just like RWC. The advice given by hero of the medications that you need are indeed valid. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2204819) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2005 3:47 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building Subject: Hi Dr. Chin!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2205311) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2005 4:13 AM Author: Frozen corn cake church building "You are a real ignoramus aren't you?" Not really. But you definitely are.
"I am not Dr. Chin, I never had a kid who went to Groton or Philips Andover." Not having such a kid doesn't mean you're not Dr. Chin. But nice try, Dr. Chin.
"Who told you that the majority of Asians in the universities are international students? That's plain rubbish."
When did I ever say that the majority of Asians in US universities are International students? I only rebutted Dr. Chin's arguments that "Asian Americans fit the holistic criteria and win hands down, including overcoming financial hardship and language barriers.." Chin's claim is nonsense, since Asian Americans in general do not fit into that criteria. That criteria is more likely met by recent Chinese immigrants who truly have financial/language barriers. But I notice you have trouble comprehending simple, unchallenging statements, and you can't take on a whole paragraph without distorting its content, just like Dr. Chin. This makes it even clearer that YOU must be Chin, now hiding under a new alias. Why did Chin suddenly disappear to have YOU take over this argument?
"Who told you that Asian parents are all dirt poor?" Dr. Chin did. He said all Asian-Americans meet the holistic criteria, including "the overcoming of financial hardships."
"Yes some are dirt poor , but some are doctors , engineers , accountants etc." Exactly. I hope Dr. Chin can learn from you, because he's definitely in the dark when it comes to Asian Americans in the US.
"What is this rubbish you are talking about Asian students not being " multidimensioanl? Only in the eyes I guess of these rotten Ivy adcoms."
Exact same statement made by Chin. I agree Asians aren't multi-dimensional. But Chin insists ALL ASIAN AMERICANS are multidimensional, diverse, poor, overcame obstacles, financial hardships, etc. So again, another blow to Dr. Chin's argument. He just can't seem to be able to make ONE single statement that is true.
"You have never been to schools here in California or the public high schools of Houston, Chicago or NYC either in the suburbs or the inner city. The level of your ignorance is so appaling."
Not having been in those schools doesn't mean "my level of ignorance is appalling." You haven't been in the corresponding schools of New York, Nevada, Montana or Florida, so by your own standards, your level of ignorance is appalling.
"You and RWC could not take on hero.." Yeah, we can't take on 300 pages of rubbish all at once, and I doubt anyone else can. Nor are we interested. Hero can't express his ideas clearly and concisely without repeatedly going on a tangent and ending by throwing a temper tantrum when his points are not immediately accepted as facts. So no rational person will be able to "take on" hero, or rather, Dr Chin.
"Bet you did not even know that just like that moron Olivia), that's why you want to pull that professional misconduct case on Chin."
Pull it? What do you mean? Chin was disciplined for his professional misconduct already, so we're not pulling anything, it's a fact. The point we're making is that, it does help to know what Chin did because it shows that Chin has problems of incompetence associated with thinking clearly and rationalizing, as evidenced by his nonsensical posts and by his professional discipline. Plus Chin was charged for fraud. I guess that just about says it all.
"I do not know anything about his professional or personal life, nor do I agree with everything that he says, he however says many things that are true." Nothing of what Chin has said so far, not a single statement, has been true.
"Keep reading the Physician's Desk Reference just like RWC. The advice given by hero of the medications that you need are indeed valid."
But Chin is not qualified to give any form of prescription, treatment, check-up, hell, not even ADVICE, with regard to medications. Remember that Chin already fucked 4+ patients, maybe more. We can't just take a chance on him. Besides, Chin is not a psychiatrist, although he definitely needs one.
I really think that Chin should find a different hobby from his current self-delegated "mission" of becoming a "hero" by advocating for Asian monopoly in US universities.
What exactly is this whole thing going to accomplish for Chin? Nothing. I'm still curious about what on earth is it that brought Chin to these boards and to his clear state of catatonia over Asian representation in the Ivies. Do you know if Chin might have become psychotic after losing his medical license? Maybe we should find a way to institutionalize him at this point. I don't know what else we can do about him.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2205390) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2005 11:48 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Asian Americans are not monolithic In addition to Americans with roots from China, Korea, and Japan of East Asia, this group also includes Americans who are Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans with roots from South Asia, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Thais, Laotians, Burmese, Singaporeans, and Taiwanese with roots from South East Asia, and Fijians and Samoans, with roots from the Amerian Pacific Islands, as well as Americans with roots from the Philippines, Indonesia (the most populous Moslem country), and Malayasia.
Asian Americans are indeed a MOST DIVERSE group, racially, ethnically. culturally, religiously, geographically, and economically from ALL social strata and class.
This definition used for the Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders demographic group by Harvard, the Ivies, and elite colleges admissions offices, is the same one used by the US Census Bureau, or for the inclusive term, "Asian Americans".
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2231006) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2005 10:11 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: More Facts- Sources as given
===========================================================
Source; From the book, "Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus", by Dinesh D'souza, 1990, Chapter 2,"(Asians are) More Equal Than Others", p. 263 (Chap. 2 footnotes):
[At Harvard in 1982 Asian Americans who were offered admission had a combined SAT average of 1467; for whites, the average was only 1355. Thus Asians typically had to score more than 100 points higher (112 points in 1982) than whites to be admitted to Harvard. Further, although Asian American application rates climbed rapidly between 1982 and 1987, Harvard continued to accept between 11 - 15% of Asians (Americans) in each freshman class, an "upper limit quota" in the minds of Asian activists. Robert Klitgaard, "Choosing Elites", Basic Books, N.Y., 1985, pp. 134-41. See also Jon Bunzel and Jeffrey Au, "Diversity or Discrimination: Asian-Americans in College," "The Public Interest", Spring 1987, p. 55.]
===========================================================
Source: Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid- Annual Report of CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in "Campus Report", November 12, 1986.
[Stanford's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid discovered, after an inquiry, that between 1982 and 1985 Asian Americans were one-third less likely than whites to be offered admission, even though they were on average better prepared than white applicants.]
Annual Report of CUAFA, Stanford University, 1986, reprinted in "Campus Report", November 12, 1986.
===========================================================
Sources: 1. The report by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMA) at Brown University
2. Grace Tsang, "Equal Access of Asian-Americans", "Yale Law Journal", January 1989, pp. 659-78.
[Some admissions officials have complained that Asian Americans tend to be lacking in extracurricular and personal qualities, which universities consider along with grades to ensure that they get well-rounded individuals. But there is no systematic evidence to this; indeed a report by the Corporation Committee on Minority Affairs (CCMA) at Brown, established to investigate charges of anti-Asian discrimination, found such assumptions to be the result of "cultural bias and stereotypes which prevail in the admissions office." In the early 1980s, these attitudes contributed to a 14% acceptance rate for Asians, who are on the average the best qualified applicants to Brown, compared to the other students who averaged an acceptance rate of 20%. See Report of CCMA, Brown University, February 1984. Between 1978 and 1986, there was a 430% increase of Asian Americans applying to Brown, but the number of these students remained fairly constant. Grace Tsang, "Equal Access of Asian-Americans", "Yale Law Journal", January 1989, pp. 659-78.]
===========================================================
Source: Consortium on Financing Higher Education, 1992
All Asian Americans, of every economic class on the average, were paying a penalty in order to be admitted to Harvard, the Ivies, and the elite colleges, by having to have higher grades (the best indicator for future academic success) and higher SAT scores at Harvard. Asian American SAT I scores at Harvard were 65 points higher than the white mean in 1992; at Rice they were 70 points higher; at Stanford, 58 points higher; Columbia, 42 points; Williams, 36 points; Brown 36 points ; Dartmouth 49 points; Princeton 40 points; and Duke 38 points higher; Sources: Consortium on Financing Higher Education, 1992.
In 1992, the gap in average SAT scores between black and white entrants was 150 points at Princeton, 171 at Stanford, 218 at Dartmouth, and 271 at Rice.
In 1992, the gap in average SAT scores between black and Asian entrants was 190 at Princeton, 229 at Stanford, 267 at Dartmouth, and 341 points at Rice.
============================================================
Source: The book, "Illiberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza (1990)
In the book, "Illiberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza (1990), D'Souza quotes from Brown University documents that indicate Brown instituted an upper-limit quota on the number of Asian students admitted. From about the mid '70s to 1986, D'Souza shows that while Asian applicants to Brown increased by over 400%, the number of students admitted remained steady.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2223121) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2005 11:24 AM Author: light big goyim associate Dr. Chin GO AWAY!!!!! (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2225723) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2005 11:41 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Poster rachmiel said to ltorivia485: Click on:
(There is no anti-asian bias in college admissions)
Date: February 27th, 2005 2:33 PM Author: rachmiel
Or you could actually respond to his point, which is sounder than the dirty 'let's personally harass him and he'll go away' bandwagon you've apparently jumped onto. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2225830) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2005 10:08 PM Author: Boyish Set Subject: The Facts ======================================================
Source: 2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald
Brown University Class of '05
16,500 applicants
Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances
African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances
Brown accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
===========================================================
Source: 2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (www.dailypennsylvanian.com):
Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvania’s Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.
According to Lee Stetson, Dean of Admissions at UPenn, Asian Americans are "today's Jews". With all due respect to Jews, Asian Americans do not want to be "today's Jews", or to be limited by quotas.
========================================================
Source: Hillel, The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
Overrepresentation or "monopoly" in American elite colleges?
Jews are overrepresented by a factor of fifhteen (15) at Harvard (33% for their 2% of the American population). Jews are the most overrepresented group at Harvard and the Ivies, yet you say that Asian Ams are overrepresented. The Asian overrepresentation pales next to Jewish overrepresentation, yet there is no quota or willfull policy to suppress Jewish numbers.
=========================================================
Source: "Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions Decisions at Stanford", 1995, Stanford U. Press, by Jean H. Fetter, former Director of Admissions at Stanford.
On page 97, she states, "The central fact was that while Asian Americans were being admitted to Stanford in numbers proportionally much larger than their representation in California and the U.S. population, the rate at which they had been admitted have been consistently lower than that for white students. Generally similar conditions have prevailed at other universities. Between 1982 and 1985. . . . . Asian Americans applicants to Stanford had admission rates ranging between 66 - 70% of the admission rates for whites ."
This could not be explained by academic/ non-academic ratings for Asian Americans, because the ratings were as good and in many cases, better than any other group, nor from interaction of ethnicity with other factors such as gender or geographic origin. Ms. Fetter denied that there was an implicit quota.
=========================================================
Source: 2/26/01 The New York Times: "Public Lives: Family History Forges Labor Secretary's Convictions"
["I know what discrimination is," says Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao. Then Ms. Chao was recruited to serve on an alumni board for Harvard. That experience, Ms. Chao said, showed her how Harvard's racial goals for admission meant that Asian-Americans were held back. Even though Asian-Americans had the highest test scores and highest grade-point averages, she said, they had the lowest admission rate because the school did not want to go over its goals for Asian-Americans. (In December 2000, when Harvard admitted 1,105 new students on an early basis for the new freshman class, 18.4 percent were Asian-American, 7.2 percent were Hispanic, 6.1 percent were African-American and 0.8 percent were Native Americans, according to the school's admissions office.) "The goal concept means you'll be subject to a higher standard of achievement for admission," said Ms. Chao, defining the particular glass ceiling and racial discrimination her community has faced since Asians first came to this country.]
==========================================================
Source: "Getting In: Inside the College Admissions Process" by Bill Paul, Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1995
The author, Mr. Bill Paul, writes in his discussion on affirmative action and reverse discrimination against Asian Americans on pp. 200-202:
[Thomas Kean, head of Drew University and former Governor of New Jersey, says some colleges have "invisible quotas" for Asian- Americans done in the name of "diversity." "Nobody wants to talk about this," he told me in an interview, "but the word is very much around at the most highly-selective colleges. People are practicing that discrimination."]
==========================================================
Hero is against all quotas or caps, both Jewish and Asian American.
(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2223100) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2005 8:45 AM Author: Boyish Set Subject: Fact: Asian Americans are 12% of Harvard U.. Jews are over 30% According to the definitive source from the Harvard website, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders are only 12% of the entire student population of Harvard University and all its schools.
Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders are only 16% or 4x of their 4% of American population at Harvard College. In addition to Americans with roots from China, Korea, and Japan of East Asia, this group also includes Americans who are Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans with roots from South Asia, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Thais, Laotians, Burmese, Singaporeans, and Taiwanese with roots from South East Asia, and Fijians and Samoans, with roots from the Amerian Pacific Islands, as well as Americans with roots from the Philippines, Indonesia (the most populous Moslem country), and Malayasia.
Asian Americans are indeed a MOST DIVERSE group, racially, ethnically. culturally, religiously, geographically, and economically from ALL social strata and class.
This definition used for the Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders demographic group by the Harvard, Ivies, and elite colleges admissions offices, is the same one used by the US Census Bureau, or for the inclusive term, "Asian Americans".
In contrast, Jews are 2% of the American population and are 15x overrepresented at over 30% of Harvard.
Link to the Harvard Fact Book on Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity:
http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/budget/factbook/current_facts/enroll_ethnicity_7.html
According to the Hillel database(http://www.hillel.org/hillel/Hillel_Schools_New.nsf/Schools?openform), Jews are 2% of the American population. They represent 30% of the undergraduates at Harvard College, 23% at Yale College and over 30% of all students at the University of Pennsylvania. The Ivy League and other elite schools have no quotas limiting Jewish students.
These same schools impose quotas limiting the number of Asian American students. Asian Americans are about 4% of the American population. Asian Americans are about 15% of the students at the Ivy League undergraduate colleges and some other elite undergraduate schools. At the University of California at Berkeley, Asian Americans represent 41% of undergraduates, where there is no quota/cap, and at Stanford, they are 25% of the undergraduates, where they are capped by a quota. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2225060) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2005 3:01 AM Author: claret indecent famous landscape painting pit this shit is funny. Has someone posted the Sean P. Wilson shit yet? Ed Chin, assuming that's you, why the fuck do you care what some inbred cousin-fucking cracker ass motherfuckers think IRL or on a message board? Trying to change the system is one thing but to argue with some yahoos who can't do anything about it even if they wanted to is some seriously fucked up shit. Get a life dude. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2205062) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2005 2:38 AM Author: exhilarant resort
Sonic youth,
Try doing something else, you do not know what you are talking about. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2217963) |
|
Date: March 1st, 2005 4:43 AM Author: claret indecent famous landscape painting pit suck my dick you dumb bitchass motherfucker (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2232320) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2005 2:42 AM Author: exhilarant resort
Tickmaster,
You are talking absolute rubbish, I will deal with you later. You do not know what you are talking about. I had dealt with people like u b4 during my stint in the NYt forum. I'll deal with you later you moron. Better comb your hair for ticks, trick master. I'm licking my chops. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2217991) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2005 2:51 AM Author: exhilarant resort
Tickmaster,
You are talking absolute rubbish, I will deal with you later. You do not know what you are talking about. I had dealt with people like u b4 during my stint in the NYt forum. I'll deal with you later you moron. Better comb your hair for ticks, trick master. I'm licking my chops. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2218050) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2005 1:01 AM Author: exhilarant resort
What now you had been reduced to filth and profanity ?, you are easy to deal with , you don't have one ounce of intelligence, I had seen your likes and your kind way back in the nYT forum,you are easy to deal with . Keep yourserlf with your boombox in you room, you do not produce music, you produce an acoustical distortion - noise that is. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2254613) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2005 5:55 AM Author: claret indecent famous landscape painting pit how does this thread not die? OH yeah people like me keep bumping it, my bad. (https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=132048&forum_id=2#2255337) |