Well, that only shows that you do not take into account that I was replying to the other poster. You see, if it is true that the AA going on was a “cancer” then it follows that all the Asians that benefited before, and that gave a lot of benefits to American society, should then be removed and disposed.
That argument also leads to the bad conclusion that someone must specially remove more educated and experience Asians that know about the issue if they realize that now they have to give also a bit more of a chance to minorities that are being push aside now as they were before.
If not a racist argument, it is a very good example of old Anti-intellectualism in a new package that also includes a rejection of history. And for that and other reasons is why one can say that that “cancer” argument has a lot of bad faith included.
This is utter bullshit. Filipinos have the second highest median income among asians ($80,000).
Vietnamese American adults born in the USA have college degrees. 65% have at least SOME college. This is significantly higher than the averge for all americans (or even all asians).
This crappy statistic is taking into account the fact that Vietnamese adults coming frequently don’t have college degrees.
This is what it looks like when statistics are contorted to fit a narrative.
And while the Hmong population do struggle, they are a teeny tiny sliver of the asian population and to justify discrimination against 99% of asians because it might help 1% of asians is pretty disingeuous.
And the fact of the matter is this isn’t about wanting to get lots of good shit for asians. It’s about fighting the casual racism of the left. The left feels bad about all the bad stuff that white people did to black people so they figure that the best way to address that is to discriminate against asian people for the benefit of black people? This is how far left white progressives seem to think.
With Kung Flu from the right and the anti-asian discrimination from the left, there really aren’t a lot of places for asians to lay their political heads.
The political will does not arise while white kids are the beneficiaries because whites want to address social but don’t want their kids to suffer for the sake of “reform”. When it is no longer their kids suffering, they withdraw their opposition to the “reform” and asian kids get thrown under the bus. It’s not overt racism but it is how racism works.
They have had 25 years to explain this to Californians and this is their third attempt. And they lost 55::45 in a state that voted for Biden 65::35. I also wan6t diversity and think it’s important. But if you asked me if it was important enough to justify racial discrimination, I would say no. When Californians were asked to make a real world decision about racial discrimination for the sake of diversity, Californians voted solidly against racial discrimination.
Those are the actual facts. Just because you wish it was some other way doesn’t make it so.
This is also an ignorant statement, it was a concern for a long time.
Scrutiny over the school’s lack of diversity isn’t new either. In 1990, the school board launched a program called Visions to increase diversity and prepare minority middle school students for TJ’s intense curriculum. With this program, the number of African American and Latino students rose to 9.4%. But a 1997 federal court ruling indirectly caused school board members to end Visions . By the year 2000, only 98 African American and Latino students attended TJ.
Again this is only possible by ignoring that most are in favor of diversity. “The old fashion way” of AA is not much appreciated, but it is clear that a lot had to do with a confusing proposition.
Leading up to and following Election Day, numerous media outlets have pointed to this description as one of the biggest obstacles that the Yes on Proposition 16 campaign faced. The first challenge was that “affirmative action” was not directly referenced, so voters may not have understood that a “yes” to Proposition 16 was a “yes” to affirmative action. Second, the reference to repealing a constitutional provision could have confused voters. The idea of repealing a prohibition is akin to a double negative, and since many people view constitutions as documents that enshrine their rights, the ballot summary might also be read as proposing to remove protections rather than restore them. Finally, many voters may not be familiar with the term “provision” as used in this context.
In focus groups and polls, support among Black and Latinx voters jumped when they understood the meaning of the proposition. Among Latinx voters, favorability was 24 percentage points lower—41 percent—among those who understood Proposition 16 as keeping the status quo than it was among those who correctly recognized that it would reinstate affirmative action (65 percent). Support rose to 76 percent when Latinx voters were shown data on racial disparities.
Similarly, Black voters in a focus group said they would not support Proposition 16 when it was read to them. But after being told the measure favors affirmative action, more Black voters indicated they would support it. In a separate poll released September 23, 51 percent of Black voters indicated they would support Proposition 16. Moreover, older voters who remember the 1996 ban may hold the misleading view that the law was a “prohibition against discrimination,” as the law’s original backers framed it in this way.
BTW that had nothing much to do with a lottery or that universities use race as a factor. As others noted, Proposition 16 allowed race to be a main factor, something that it is easier to spin as a bad thing, but because that is not what is going on the universities mentioned in the thread, race is not a main factor. That has allowed the universities to win cases because as it is continued to be grossly ignored, race is not the main factor in the efforts at diversity.
I do remember that in California what remains of diversity has been maintained by concentrating on the income of the families, however as pointed out too, there is still a loss of diversity on higher education that is increasing.
In critical race theory there are no other explanations - all human behavior is a struggle for dominance among races and all policies are constructed with the primary goal of harming black people. If Asians succeed it’s entirely because someone rigged the system to make sure blacks didn’t - there’s no need to prove this because it’s one of the axiomatic beliefs required to enter the ideology.
There you go again, CRT is also used by Asians, using the CRT framework, Asian CRT proponents also do notice how the myths about a model minority are used to discriminate too against Asians. Thinking that Blacks are the only ones that would benefit is grossly wrong.
The racism against Asian Americans is far more complex and nuanced than what society tends to believe. As seen in higher education policies and practices such as affirmative action, recruitment, and student activities, Asian Americans are purpose-fully used as a middleperson minority, garnering animosity from both dominant (white) and oppressed (Black, Latinx, and Native American) groups. This position also excludes us from the POC community, resulting in a lack of belongingness to any community. A transformation of the notions of “diversity” and “minority” are needed, as well as the dismantling of white-serving systems that pit people of color against one another. Words, in publishing and reading, have power. Through writing this piece, I work towards reclaiming my identity as a person of color and integrating Asian Americans into the POC community.
Through investigating the academic literature, I find sources of support and knowledge that allow me (and us) to be seen and heard. In sharing my lived experiences, I help our community to be seen and heard. Higher education practices must work towards the same goals. Acknowledging the exclusion of Asian Americans through the forced racial hierarchy can guide better practices and policies that include all people of color.
This isn’t about getting benefits for asians. This is about stopping discrimination against asians.
To paraphrase something Ruth Bader Ginsburg once paraphrased: “I ask no favors for my [race]. All I ask of our brethren is, that they will take their feet from off our necks.”
None of the stuff about asians is new to CRT. Model minority issues existed long before CRT was a thing.
You can only get so much mileage out of showcasing how poorly the Hmong are doing. Of the 14 million asian americans, over 13 million of them have roots in the indian subcontinent, confucian cultures or the phillipines. And all of that is besides the point. This isn’t about getting more good shit for asians. This is about stopping anti-asian discrimination.
I don’t know why you keep linking to what amounts to opinions and anecdote. This link to an article by a student in the Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration graduate program at the University of Vermont based on her “lived experiences” seems about as compelling as any other random post we can see right here on this website. What makes her “lived experience” and opinions any better than yours or mine?
At some point you have to stop making excuses for why affirmative action has failed to gain a majority of votes in one of the most progressive states in America three times over the last 25 years. Perhaps you don’t want to believe it but Californians simply may not be cool with race based discrimination.
Then why are they so upset about it?
There is no real loss of diversity in higher education, the loss of diversity is at the most selective schools like Berkeley and UCLA. This entire debate is about the most selective schools where the push for racial diversity causes large distortions.
The number of black and hispanic kids going to california state schools did not really change by much. What changed is which state schools they were going to school. This coincidentally correlated with better graduation rates and higher grades (as measured by kids on the dean’s list).
Nope, this is about anti-intellectuals forgetting about how AA helped Asians before, that Asians involved do take that into account, and that now Hispanics and Blacks need that feet from their necks.
Again, it is clear that you do not want to deal with the cites that shows that when explained properly most do realize how confusing the proposition was, your opposition also is just telling the ones affected the most to stop fighting for one important bit of the effort (it is not just Asians now as you contiguously want to ignore). Yours is a request that items that were not supported by many early, like gay people’s rights or women’s rights should just give up after several years of fruitless toil.
Are you calling me an anti-intellectual? That’s pretty ironic.
I missed the cite to asians benefiting from affirmative action. Are we talking about the Hmong again?
And what foot is standing on the necks of blacks and hispanics? Because if we are discriminating against blacks and hispanics, we should stop doing that. What unfair barriers are we placing in their path that we do not place in the path of others?
That is like telling others that there is no difference between direct testimony and hearsay. Shooting the messenger and not the issues they point at is the fallacy you are using, with a bit of trying to claim that this is just appeal to authority, the problem you have is to act as if appeal to authority is a fallacy all the time, it is actually ok to get testimony from the people that are involved and offering educated opinions and experiences about why they also agree on making the changes.
25 years and three referendum. All failed. You point to a bunch of excuse making by supporters of the proposition that lost despite an overwhelming fundraising advantage and a metric ton of celebrity endorsements. Why is it so hard to communicate the purpose of this referendum?
Gay people were not asking for special treatment. They were asking for equal treatment.
Women were not asking for special treatment. They were asking for equal treatment.
This proposition is not asking for equal treatment. It is asking for discrimination based on race. Discrimination that helps one minority at the expense of another. Maybe people can tell the difference.
The anti-intellectual part is not referring to you, but the ones making the lawsuits that clearly deny history about how AA helped Asians before and ignore that Blacks and Hispanics need some help nowadays.
Of course the statement quoted from you here is an ignorant one. Considering what was already shown in other past threads. Not my problem that you continue then to deny that a weak form of AA is tried to be used to allow a few more Hispanics and blacks to get to the elite schools. As shown already on other cites, even early in the history of the school, the Hispanic and Black population in the school did not reflect the current population in the area, it is an issue that others did notice that there is evidence of discrimination going on.
What issues? They are just stating opinions. I don’t find their opinions much more compelling that yours or anyone else’s for that matter. Appeal to authority is a fallacy when that authority is just presenting their personal opinion. Half your links even state that it’s an opinion piece. The rest talk about their lived experiences and shit like that.
If you have an argument for why it is good policy to discriminate based on race then present it.
But so far your argument seems to hinge on diversity in higher education and it is clear that the UC system is not significantly less diverse due to a lack of affirmative action. Where diversity suffers is at the top schools like Berkeley and UCLA. So you are really just arguing for diversity at the top schools where asians are over-represented and you want us to endorse racial discrimination in order to achieve more racial diversity at those 2 schools.
Similarly, the lottery at TJHSST and the reforms at places like Lowell and Stuyvesant are not directed at systemic diversity issues. It is directed at the diversity in the most selective institutions where asians are over-represented.
The lottery at TJHSST is particularly offensive because the largest impact of the lottery will be to replace a bunch of asian kids with a bunch of white kids.