Thanks. What a jackass that guy is. And, yes, I mean is. That kind of racism is not accidental. FWIW, I think it’s mocking Asian names and what he sees as stereotypically Black names.
As Monty noted, that guy showed his bias against black people too.
You are grossly missing that systemic racism is hard to get rid of when people like him does get into high positions. And you are wrong still, if you were correct about him being accepted in a movement that you still cant get a cite that he was a part of, he would had been supported and kept his job. As it was, even the Asian activist member of the comission that voted for the change and for sure was glad for the chaiman resigned.
What it is clear is that the ones that imagine that the changes are just a racist thing against Asians can’t explain properly why Asian activists would also vote for a change that while it can limit the number of Asians, they know also that a school should make efforts to be more inclusive and reflect more the population of a city or place that they serve.
Yeah, I got that impression too. He claimed he was talking about a book, but I don’t see how it could make any difference.
Even some black people voted for Trump. It doesn’t prove anything. But that guy who was caught saying something racist really was working towards more diversity, whether or not he was accepted by an official movement (is there even such a thing?) Tis odd.
Not more odd as when a poster that is against anyone that votes for more diversity thinks that the biased fellow that was caught was a part of a specific movement when the poster offered no evidence whatsoever for the assumption that the biased fellow was part of the movement the poster has a dislike for.
IMHO that was like someone pointing out that there were some racists from the past that voted in favor of the civil rights legislation back in the 50s or 60s. They had other political reasons to do so, or they were changing as the nation was. AFAIK many that somehow voted for civil rights that still had some biases then, did not belong to any movement in favor of civil rights, although as I have seen looking at history, some opponents of change liked to paint the white politicians of their time as betrayers of their race just for their votes alone. It did not matter much that they still had some animosity towards other races.
One has to notice here that several posters do think that Asians that also vote in favor of diversity are somehow betrayers of their race when in reality they agree that there is a need for more diversity. That there may be some racists among them is possible, but not a reason to dismiss that the integrated committee in this case voted unanimously for the change. Including the Asian American member.
I don’t think anyone but Farrakhanite black nationalists, KKK members, and CRT fanatics believe in such a ridiculous concept as “betraying your race.” Asians who vote in favor of Asian quotas are engaging in a racist act based on incorrect premises about how school systems should work, just like non-Asians who vote in favor of Asian quotas are.
He demonstrably was part of the movement to end merit based school admissions because of diversity. That doesn’t mean he’s some kind of card carrying member, just that he supports the idea and helped push it through.
I wonder if GIGObuster will agree to name anyone at all besides him or herself who supports critical race theory. I think he even said Ibram Kendi has nothing to do with CRT, which is like answering a rhetorical “is the Pope Catholic” joke with “at this time I have no idea why anyone would think he is.” It was either him or some other poster in the other thread. Anyway, it seems like denying that this movement exists beyond one person on this message board, whenever its adherents are exposed for what they truly are, is the number one strategy.
I think you need to check some posters that reached for that explanation when I pointed to the the Asian scholars that agree with me.
Avoiding the fact that an Asian activist voted with all the commission for the change is really more problematic for some posters than finding that a commissioner who was found to have biases could still do the right thing. BTW where is the cite that the one that resigned was a CRT member?
Well thanks for showing all that you don’t pay attention, I know he was involved in CRT, but the point I made was that his involved in the magnet school was with his books as a recommended reading, nowhere you showed that he was involved in support or against of the diversity changes.
Not the point, that was just a fancier way to report that that remains an argument from ignorance. BTW I don’t think you made the argument, he did, so again, in the past one could see former racists that still voted for the right thing, but never belonged to groups that supported change that some hate with little reason, some politicians however belonged in earlier times to very racist groups. It is important though in the current case to establish if it is true that a bigoted in words was part of CRT groups. Otherwise, why raise the accusation if not to make a fallacious argument of guilt by association when there is none?
Why is it important that Loconto was part of CRT groups? AIUI it’s the philosophy of CRT that’s the problem: it’s practically axiomatic that differences in outcome must be due to differences in opportunity, ie racism, and since Asians are doing okay as a group that implies there is no racism against them. And people are treated as groups rather than individuals (‘Asians are hoarding opportunities’, but in reality no individual is taking more than one place or anything they don’t deserve. It doesn’t help you if someone else with the same skin colour gets into a good school.) So either the ideas could appeal more to those with a bias against Asians, or someone with racist views could make use of them.
But most likely @DamuriAjashi is right. The people pushing for quotas and lotteries and so on really are trying to help black and hispanic students, but it’s only politically possible because the cost is born by another marginalised group - Asians.
Remember, that was important to ZosterSandstorm, ask him why that is, IMO it just muddles the waters and tries to set conspiracy theories.
And again claiming that DamuriAiashi was right requires you like him and others to continue to ignore that there are Asians that are involved or vote for the changes.
After looking at why they would then vote or be in favor of more diversity, it is clear to me that it is because they see the it is not only that just Asians will be inconvenienced, but for their community in the near future they also see that it is better to offer better chances to grossly unrepresented marginalized groups. In the end it is not needed to be a member of a conspiracy, just to understand that even before CRT was a thing Affirmative Action and diversity ideas existed, just as there are Asians involved that do notice what is important.
In the wake of the Harvard suit and Yale investigation, students have rallied behind the use of race-based affirmative action in admissions to maintain a diverse student body. On Friday, a group of students — former photography editor for the News Robbie Short ’19, Alex Wang ’19, Rita Wang ’19, Kaori West ’21 and Stella Xu ’21 — organized a photo campaign for students to show their support for affirmative action in anticipation of the Harvard trial.
“We have a lot more to lose as Asian Americans if we don’t support other races. It’s important to build this unified movement with communities of color,” Rita Wang said.
And as it is clear this needs to be pointed out as it is usually ignored: Even Asians see what is important for the future, the judge then did agree with the Asian students there and with the members of Yale university in that mentioned case. Race is one factor, not the only one as the ones that claim to support Asians in their efforts to keep things the same in other institutions ignore constantly.
It is not a surprise that a concept like Affirmative Action is (possibly irretrievably) dangerously tainted ever since it was used to keep Jews, or, more accurately, the wrong sorts, out of Ivy League universities. Fixing that would require a ground-up replacement of the Byzantine system that includes legacy admissions, personal evaluations, etc, and it is not clear they want to do so, or what would replace it.
There seems to be some parallel to the recent hot mess over undergraduate admissions in France, with acrimonious debate over whether lotteries are acceptable, whether meritocracy/selectivity is acceptable and if popular programs should be allowed to take into account applicants’ school grades and performance, lack of transparency, and all the same issues. I am by no means well informed, but I understand that in recent years the government did push for “meritocracy” yet it is not transparent what algorithms have been implemented.
When CRT devotees on school boards can’t get enough of going on recorded video calls and saying “we need to eliminate merit-based admissions because it leads to too many Asians getting in” is asserting that they believe what they say really a “conspiracy theory?” It’s very hard to understand what it’s like to live in GIGObuster’s world where policies are formed despite no one in power actually believing or doing anything, and ideologies have no influence on anyone’s principles or behavior.
One interesting thing about trying to recast the Harvard Asian quota as being about “affirmative action” is that some people on the anti-quota side have offered to just go back to a straight quota for black (and presumably Hispanic) students. If, on merit-based admissions, schools like TJ and Harvard would be 6% black-and-Hispanic, and the quotamongers demand representation at something like double that, or the percent population of the local area, or even the percent of the whole U.S. population (which would be something like 13% black and 20% Hispanic) then let’s just do that - give everyone the same admissions test, let the top black applicants in until you’ve filled 13% of the class, let the top Hispanic applicants in until you’ve filled 20% of the class, then allocate the remaining 67% of the spots to the top applicants from other racial groups.
The advantages here are that there is no ambiguity or dishonesty in the system (beyond the fact that people with tenuous claims on being black or Hispanic will try to assert that identity, but that already happens in the admissions process anyway). We get rid of pretending that we care about “well-roundedness.” Applicants can stop pretending to be rowers and doing fake charity work to “stand out.” All of the contortions that are put onto the current process to enable the Asian quota while providing implausible deniability that it exists can be dropped. The behind the scenes corruption that benefits athletes, legacies, and people willing to pay straight-up bribes is gone because admissions is based on a straight formula of SAT, ACT, AP, and IB scores that are comparable across schools with different grading systems. Everyone knows the rubric used to rank candidates and you can’t get around it.
Why is there absolutely no support for such a plan among the people who claim that maintaining the Asian quota is actually about the need for a “diverse” campus with black and Hispanic students on it? Because it’s not about that - the idea of a Harvard that’s minority-white is what terrifies them. The continued trotting out of a few Asian faces changes nothing about who controls the process and what their goals are. The point of the Harvard system isn’t to benefit black or Hispanic applicants, and the fact that they are totally uninterested in a plan that would raise the number of black and Hispanic students shows that. The point is to allocate the remaining seats, after black and Hispanic AA is accounted for, to white people instead of Asians (and, for some, also to Northern European Protestants instead of Jews within what CRT considers “white people”). They know that on a pure merit system there will be “too many Asians” and they oppose any further encroachment of merit on the race-based process even if that means allegedly meeting their goals about black and Hispanic representation.
And that shows once again that you are not reading what I typed. The still missed point is that bigoted persons that are not involved with CRT can vote for the right thing still. That still does not contradict the need to dismiss people that are indeed bigoted. Again, it is ignorant to dismiss that AA and diversity are things that existed before CRT came around, there is no need to assign an ideology to the things you do not like.
And here one has to notice that once again you do not have a cite for the bigot belonging to the CRT movement.
Are people asserting that we need to reconfigure society because the universe is a constant struggle for racial supremacy part of critical race theory? No way to tell. Do people with red hats and “cops lives matter” bumper stickers exhibit a greater tendency than the average to be Trump supporters? Who knows. Is this store that says “SUBWAY” on it going to make me a sandwich, or try to sell me new tires? Impossible to predict.
What is it like to live in your world where nothing means anything?
To be more precise, I have to say: there is no need to assign CRT (that you smeared with very little evidence) to older ideas like AA that you also do not like with no evidence to do so.
There is a lot of ignorance there because CRT proponents actually do criticize AA although not for the right wing reasons, hence the point that it looks like conspiracy thinking when CRT is mentioned constantly like a bugaboo when ridiculously applied to everything that you do not understand. .
One need not invoke any complicated race theory to see that admissions at Harvard and Yale were rigged by and for WASPs; they have admitted as much:
"There were vicious, ugly forms of discrimination at Yale, as with the larger society,‘’ the current [in 1986] Yale University Secretary, John A. Wilkinson, said. ‘‘It’s part of our history, and we should face up to it.’’
It is possible for these policies to change, but it is also possible for them to un-change.
I don’t think you have an accurate view of what people actually think.
If there was actually the sort of support for this sort of race based preference that you seem to think exists then why would prop 16 fail in one of the most liberal states in the country.
After reading the article it is clear that you did not understand it, it showed that I was correct and prominent Asian Americans do understand why your opinion is flawed and supported the measure, just as the Asians involved in the universities also think that you are wrong too.
In any case, a lot of ignorance was there about the proposition, anyone that concludes there was no support for it is willfully ignoring how confusing the proposition was.
Wilcher also said that there may not have been enough time to “educate the electorate” about Prop 16.
“The term ‘preferences’ is often misused when it comes to affirmative action,” she said. “Moreover, the concept of taking race into account, even if it is only one of many factors, has to be clearly explained. There also remains the illusion about meritocracy in higher education admissions. The recent scandals about individuals buying their children’s way into colleges are the worst example of that. Many factors are considered when admitting students to competitive institutions, in addition to grades and test scores. Moreover, there is also the notion of the ‘zero-sum’ game: if you benefit from efforts to overcome the preferences some have enjoyed for centuries, I lose.”
The issue of language has been of particular importance with the Latinx population, which stood to benefit from Prop 16.
A poll by the Latino Community Foundation found that a slim plurality of the Latinx population agreed with the proposal (50 percent to 48 percent). However, the poll also asked the voters what they perceived Prop 16 to do. Thirty-two percent believed that voting yes would preserve the status quo and block the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions.
Of those who understood that Prop 16 would allow such consideration, a clear majority – 65 percent to 34 percent – was in favor.
BTW, one should notice that that article is not really a counter to what I said, Asians in academic circles that are involved in increasing diversity do understand that the people against increasing diversity are getting it wrong.