I’m not sure what you are referring to.
I’ll take it to ATMB
I’m not sure what you are referring to.
I’ll take it to ATMB
As I said I was wrong about what they supported on the San Francisco schools diversity issue, I was not wrong about them not supporting quotas, but as shown before they are in favor of being fair to other groups. I think you are not getting that my original reason to pointing at them is because they have been successful in other issues, not that they are perfect in everything they did in 50 years.
They were pointed because you have dismissed many others already that are more involved with the issue. In the end the fallacy you are repeating is that if all or “most” Asians believe that they should in the end look to benefit more and be less fair to Hispanics or Blacks, it must be a good thing. It is the old fashion fallacious argument of popularity applied just to Asians.
The point I made with the CAA was that there are other more educated or experts in sociology and other related fields Asians that disagree with the issue from the OP. That groups like the CAA were wrong in some issues does not mean that an organization that has defended affirmative action for more than 50 years has no support whatsoever.
Referring to those Asians as “woke” and dismissing them just like that, is just a right wing method to dismiss more involved or intellectual people.
I can assure you that those of us who think “woke” is an insult are not using it to mean “too intellectual.”
The wiki article I linked to states otherwise. The wiki article states that CAA supported racial quotas that capped asian admissions to Lowell, this resulted in higher admissions standards for asians than others. CAA’s support for caps on asians at lowell was contrary to the sentiment hald by asians generally.
It’s not an opinion, it is a reporting of facts. Do you have evidence that the wiki article is incorrect?
In what way are asians trying to be less fair to hispanics and blacks?
In what way are the CAA more intellectual? It seems like they are more emotional than intellectual.
And the right wing are not the only folks who are sick of the woke left. It’s not meant as an insult any more than you use the term right wing as an insult. Except on this board people misapply the term to mean anything to the right of Bernie Sanders.
I was not pointing at the CAA specifically there. But to other more academic cites that you dismissed as “woke” too.
I actually did read the decision from the courts from 2005, the timeline they presented was that the idea in 1999 was to end the apparent quotas based on race, the thing the CAA supported was a compromise to end quotas and set up an index not based on race, but the main issue was about the lack of diversity in the SF schools; the end result though was more segregation and then the compromise that came from 1999 was ended by the court.
Yes, I think they are woke. They put considerations of race ahead of considerations of fairness or equity.
I think you are incorrect. CAA supported the continued use of racial quotas contrary to the general opinion of most asians. The eventual compromise was not what CAA supported to begin with. That is not the side they lined up on.
Early on you accused me of just looking at Wikipedia articles, I granted that I misread one thing, but reading the court’s verdict puts in doubt what you declared about the CAA. And it looks like you repeated the Wikipedia article as if that was just enough, I don’t think so.
THE HO ACTION.
Notwithstanding this success [that the schools did reach diversity], some members of the San Francisco community were not pleased with the results of the 1983 consent decree, particularly the requirement that student assignment to schools adhere to a certain racial/ethnic distribution.
That is why I think the 1999 decree came as a result of trying to end the apparent quotas that the schools were using in SF.
The central feature of the settlement in 1999 was that the Ho plaintiffs could succeed with their declaration that "the race based plan of the schools being used was not constitutional, IOW using quotas was the problem. The success of the 1980’s settlement that allowed to increase diversity could end, but it is clear that in 1999 the settlement was made by using an index that did not use race as a compromise. If the Wikipedia cite you pointed out was correct, then many Asian parents then just noted how inadequate they thought that settlement was, but it was the remaining way to remove the apparent quotas and avoid getting even less if they lost the case.
Sadly, the result was more segregation and the reason why Judges decided the settlement reached in 1999 to deal with the apparent quotas was a bad one as it also ended diversity.
In short, since the settlement of the Ho litigation, the consent decree has proven to be ineffective, if not counterproductive, in achieving diversity in San Francisco public schools. De jure segregation has never been proven, much less vestiges thereof. As the decree has come to be used, the Court must pretend to supervise decisions better left in the hands of education professionals subject to the rough and tumble of local politics and government.
I read the same link from the same wiki article as you. Would you care to point out where it says that the CAA did not try to protect quotas?
Yes, but the CAA was not the ones trying to end the quotas. Ho was a 5 year long litigation. The CAA was on the side of quotas up until the courts basically told them that they would lose, then they supported the proposal tp a modification to the consent decree. They mirrored the amicus brief submitted by the NAACP in favor of quotas.
You can’t change history. The CAA supported a an anti-asian quota that most asians objected to. They sided with the NAACP over asian kids.
Again, your quote does not give context. In the end what the effort in 1999 was to end quotas. With the index clearly what was left as an attempt to stop the apparent quotas.
As the quotes showed, the end result anyhow was to end the apparent quotas, it also took away diversity.
The lawsuit started in 1994. The CAA and the NAACP lined up against the plaintiffs. It wasn’t until 1999 when the courts indicated that the consent decree was probably unconstitutional as it stood that they reached an agreement to modify the consent decree. Up until then the CAA were supporting anti-asian quotas.
Yes the end of quotas was fought by the CAA. They wanted to preserve quotas.
And frankly, if neglect a child’s education for 10 years and then try to fix it the year before they enter high school, you are going to get this result frequently. We can discuss how to fix education but until you recognize that the way to fix education isn’t just to artificially increase the number of blacks students at more selective schools, we cannot fix the root problems.
And even after you recognize how bad racial discrimination is, you will probably not agree with my prescription for fixing things.
Things is that I expected then to support that with cites, AFAIK, the ones supporting the 1999 settlement were also conservative Asians supporting the settlement as ending quotas.
Instead, the parents found a sympathetic hearing from Asian conservatives, especially the Chinese American Democratic Club—a group which, interestingly, also works to increase minority affirmative action in government contracts. The Asian American Legal Foundation was formed in part to support the parents’ lawsuit, which was filed in 1994. Ward Connerly trumpeted the plight of the Lowell plaintiffs as he stumped for anti-affirmative action Proposition 209 in 1996.
In February, lawyers for the parents and the NAACP unveiled an eleventh-hour settlement which overturned the sixteen-year-old consent decree and ended San Francisco’s use of racial considerations in student assignment. When the settlement was announced, Amy Chang of the Legal Foundation crowed, “The era of racial bean-counting is over.” Roland Quan of the Chinese American Democratic Club was even more triumphal. “This is a solution,” he said, with little apparent irony, “for the 21st Century.”
If you define everyone who thinks the government should not engage in blatant discrimination to engineer racial outcomes as a “conservative” then you’re going to have a very easy time finding “conservatives” everywhere including in every group you disagree with.
As I noted, I may had gotten the support or not of the CAA wrong on this item, however it is wrong to say that the conservative Asians did not agree with that 1999 settlement, they where happy and declared that it ended quotas. It also ended diversity too and the judges told them that was wrong.
Once again, please read your own links. CAA was against the removal of quotas from the moment the lawsuit was filed. They lined up with the NAACP and said that if asians didn’t support affirmative action (which discriminates against asians) it would increase discrimination against asians.
“Asian American and other critics call the group’s efforts narrow, selfish, and hypocritical—and bound to inflame racial tensions. “Chinese Americans are being used as a proxy of anti-affirmative action and anti-integration viewpoints, which ultimately increase discrimination against our community,” says Diane Chin of Chinese for Affirmative Action.”
At this point I’m not sure what you are trying to say anymore.
Can you use more words to describe what you are trying to say here?
The cite from Wikipedia you used remains unclear, the logic here is that if you are correct that the CAA did support quotas by supporting the settlement, it then makes no sense because conservative Asians that supported the 1999 settlement were gloating that it was going to end quotas as per their own words.
The impression I got early from posters against AA was that Asian opponents to AA disliked the settlement of 1999. If that was the case it was a very peculiar way to show the dislike of the settlement from them.
I think you might be missing a step.
Lowell was highly segregated.
They were required to divdersify.
The school was using a quota system as part of a consent decree (think of it as a settlement) to try and integrate lowell.
As the demographics of san francisco became more and more asian, this quotas system eventually turned into a cap on asian admissions forcing asian students to score much higher than their non-asian peers to get into lowell.
A lawsuit was filed to stop that quota system.
CAA supported the continuation of the quota system.***
It started to become obvious that the lawsuit would succeed so the school district settled.
The settlement eliminated race as a consideration and replaced race with “socioeconomic background, mother’s educational level, academic achievement, language spoken at home, and English Learner Status.”
This did not have the desired effect and lowell continued to become more and more asian. The judge noted that these additional factors may be contributing to less diversity IOW (a lot of asians do not speak english at home and many asian immigrants are poor).
Based on the lack of effectiveness, the judge let the settlement lapse.
CAA supported anti-asian discrimination. Most asians do not. CAA does not represent asian sentiments. You should probably stop using them as an authority on what asians believe or how asians feel.