c*******e
发帖数: 193 | 1 起草了一份反AA给大学校长和其他工作人员的信。水平有限，错误在所难免，见谅。放
弃版权，各位可随意复制、修改、分发。加以修改后可寄给中小学、政府、官员个人、
法院、或法官个人等等。墙倒众人推，同胞们一定要使用各种方式，在各种场合———
—口头上的，行动上的，法律上的，政策上的，工作中，社区中，学校里，教会里，酒
吧中，尽自己能力，宣传AA的恶劣，为AA拆砖卸瓦。虽然每个人能力影响有限，团结起
来，持之以恒，时间长了就是很大的力量。
主要策略：（1）现行AA违法了平等精神，也违反了当初AA的目的。（2）现行AA黑墨也
是受害者，而不是受益者。体现在ten strong reasons第八条。现行AA人人都是受害者
。当然有人不认可，不过要长期这样宣传。
欢迎指点，谢绝谩骂。
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing this letter to respectfully request you to create an equal
education opportunity to all students, regardless of their race, ethnics,
and color, using your voice, influence, power, or any other possible ways.
The principle of "liberty and justice for all" is the centerpiece of the
American way of life. This principle reinforces our creed that "all men are
created equal" and drives our system of merit. However, before African-
American Civil Rights Movement, racial segregation and discrimination was
legal and widely accepted.
Thanks to Martin Luther King, Jr. and countless civil rights activists,
Affirmative Action was finally signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6
March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or
national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard
to their race, creed, color, or national origin". Later, The Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on
July 2, 1964 at the White House, outlawed major forms of discrimination
against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. It
ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial
segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the
general public (known as "public accommodations").
In his famous speech "I Have a Dream", Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “I
have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content
of their character". As envisioned by Kennedy, this "colorblind government"
policy was consistent with the American ideal of equal treatment for all.
When he announced this policy, JFK said that "race has no place in American
life or law".
In the early years of Affirmative Action (authentic AA), discrimination
against African Americans was greatly reduced. People are happy to see that
Affirmative Action brought great justice to the country. However, in the
fullness of time, Affirmative Action (fake AA) ceased to be
nondiscrimination and significantly deviated the justice that Martin Luther
King, Jr. dreamed and President John F. Kennedy enacted. Instead, a system
of preferences was widely adapted in college admissions, contract set-asides
and employment "quotas" to achieve "diversity" in virtually all segments of
American life. The system of preference evolved to be a double-standard for
different races’ people. This is strongly against the America Spirit,
opposing authentic AA, and actually segregating different races people in
again.
Most universities/employers use the racial and ethnical classification of (1
) White (2) African American (3) Hispanic (4) Asian and Pacific. The using
of racial and ethnical preference in university admission causes significant
different average scores in ethnical students, which makes it unfair. In
general, Asia students have the highest admission scores; White students
have the second highest admission scores; Hispanic students have the third
highest admission score; and African American students have the lowest
admission scores.
The ten strong reasons for supporting authentic AA and opposing fake AA (
racial and ethnic preference) in university admissions are:
1. Treating people differently on the basis of skin color and what
country their ancestors came from violates the American creed, which we
should be treated without regard to race, creed, or color.
2. The use of racial preferences reinforces and depends on racialism and
stereotypes.
3. Racial and ethnic preference is against Martin Luther King, Jr. and
President John F. Kenney’s intention – creating equality for all people
regardless their color.
4. Racial and ethnic preference is against early Affirmative Action (
authentic AA).
5. Racial and ethnic preference segregates people by color AGAIN.
6. The mismatching of less qualified individuals with more demanding
institutions simply sets up the former to fail.
7. The classification of racial and ethnic classification is not
scientific and not logical. Most universities/employers use the
classification of (1) White (2) African American (3) Hispanic (4) Asian and
Pacific. However, many white people were born in Africa; e.g. South Africa
has 9% white people in their overall population. If some of them come to USA
, are they white or African American? 22% of Russia’s population lives in
Asia. If some of them come to USA, are they white or Asian and Pacific? More
and more mixed ethnic children were born in USA. It becomes more and more
difficult to classify each person into one of above categories accurately.
8. Racial and ethnic preference harms African Americans more than
benefits them. First, due to the preference system, African American
students have the lowest average scores. This creates the stereotype that
African Americans are not smart, which is a nauseous prejudice and unfair to
African Americans. Second, due to the preference system in education and
employment, it is hard to judge whether the success of an African American
is due to smart / hard working or due to the low bar that the system setup.
Many people may think their success is due to the low bar, even if they are
smart and hard working. This is unfair to African American.
9. The idea that racial and ethnic preference can make up for the past
discrimination is not justified. Most of the people that lived in
discrimination time are very old or even died. Current racial and ethnic
preference cannot make up their loss or take away their benefit. Instead, it
creates new discrimination in young people. In addition, the beneficiary in
discrimination time is white people. Asia and Pacific were also victims in
that time. However, in current preference system, Asia and Pacific becomes
the victims again.
10. The racial and ethnic preference can achieve diversity is lopsided.
Diversity does not only refer to racial and ethnic, but also refers to
religion, creed, value orientation, culture, and language, etc. Obviously,
educational institute and employer cannot consider preference and setup
quota for each category. Therefore, only considering racial and ethnic
preference and setting up quota is lopsided. On the other hand, since people
composition and value orientation is very complicated, educational
institute and employer can achieve diversity automatically without
considering any of preference and setting up quota for any category.
Fortunately, many states have started the movement of revoking racial and
ethnic preference and this trend will continue. Below is a brief summary of
status in selected states. The Affirmative Action they referred is actually
the later fake AA.
California
Proposition 209, 1996. This proposition mandates that "the state shall not
discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or
group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
Prop 209 was controversial because it was promoted as civil rights
legislation, although it was essentially a ban on affirmative action.
Proponents argue that the measure ensures that the civil rights of whites
and Asian Americans are protected by ensuring parity between races.
Washington
Initiative 200, 1998 was overwhelmingly passed by the electorate in
Washington. Taking effect on December 3, 1998, it applies to all local
governments, including counties, cities, and towns. I-200 prohibits "
preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin in public employment, education, and contracting.
Michigan
In November 2006, voters in the State of Michigan made affirmative action
illegal by passing Proposal 2 (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), a state-
wide referendum amending the Michigan Constitution. Proposal 2 bans public
affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or
individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin
for public employment, public education or public contracting purposes. The
amendment, however, contains an exception for actions that are mandated by
federal law or that are necessary in order for an institution to receive
federal funding. All attempts to appeal this legislation on questions of
constitutionality have thus far failed.
Nebraska
In November of 2008, Nebraska voters passed a constitutional ban on
government-sponsored affirmative action. Initiative 424 bars government from
giving preferential treatment to people on the basis of ethnicity or gender.
Arizona
In 2010 Arizona voters passed a constitutional ban on government-sponsored
affirmative action known as Proposition 107.
New Hampshire
As of January 1, 2012, affirmative action is not allowed in college
admissions and employment.
Oklahoma
During November 6, 2012 election poll, majority of Oklahoma voters voted '
yes' to Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment which will end affirmative
action in college admissions and employment.
Florida
In 1999, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed an Executive Order, known as "One
Florida," that was structured to prohibit race, gender and ethnic
preferences in all aspects of state employment, contracting and college
admission. Voters were in support of the initiative that was being proposed
by a margin of 66-34, but presidential politics intruded to keep the
initiative off the ballot. The Executive Order remains in effect.
With many people’s help, 26.3% of the American people now reside in states
that are "race-neutral" in the public domain of education, employment and
contracting. We can be proud of that, but that is not enough. Our goal is to
achieve 100%.
If you want to help, you are not alone. Many organizations or individuals
hold the same opinion as you. Below are just a few:
American Civil Rights Institute http://www.acri.org/
Center For Equal Opportunity http://www.ceousa.org/
Therefore, I respectfully request you to create an equal education
opportunity to all students and build a colorblind country.
If you are the president of a university, use your legal power to ban or
minimize racial and ethnical preference in your university.
If you are the provost or an admission officer in a university, do not
consider racial and ethnical factors in admission process.
If you are a professor, do not consider racial and ethnical factors when you
select your graduate student.
If you are an ordinary employee in a university, use your voice or any other
ways to advocate equal opportunity education.
Equal opportunity education is good for you, for your kids, and for
everybody, regardless your race and ethnics. Individual’s power is small,
but if we united and consistently advocate equal opportunity in long term,
we can make a great difference.
God Bless America.
Thank you very much,
Name | m**n
发帖数: 9010 | 2 其实关键问题是, 所谓的"racial preference"是怎么具体执行的?
我个人的立场是, 凡是泛泛而言的racial preference, 都应该禁止.
也就是说, 不是说那种给某种族加30分, 或者给某种族留规定比例的位子出来,
而就是给一个泛泛的要求照顾少数族裔的guide line.
因为这种racial preference无法以一个统一的规范让所有相关人等去
一致执行. 说不定执行者A对黑人给了更多preference, 执行者B对亚州人给
更多preference, 执行者C对女性给了更多preference.
但相对来说, 这种泛泛而言的racial preference, 却最不容易禁止. 因为人家没有
具体规定, 你就很难指出人家操作中哪里是因为racial preference而如此做的.
就算人家把"racial preference"从guide line中拿走, 不再这么宣传, 具体执行的时候
还是可以这么做.
有具体标准的racial preference, 那么就看具体标准是什么, 具体讨论.
这个, 我认为实际上还是有相对合理, 又能照顾到少数族裔的方法的
(例如, 学校录取, 可以拨出5%左右的名额, 专门分给少数族裔.
使得这些少数族裔中与本族相比优秀的人才, 有机会得到破格录取.
而不是统一把少数族裔分数拔高).
【在 c*******e 的大作中提到】
: 起草了一份反AA给大学校长和其他工作人员的信。水平有限，错误在所难免，见谅。放
: 弃版权，各位可随意复制、修改、分发。加以修改后可寄给中小学、政府、官员个人、
: 法院、或法官个人等等。墙倒众人推，同胞们一定要使用各种方式，在各种场合———
: —口头上的，行动上的，法律上的，政策上的，工作中，社区中，学校里，教会里，酒
: 吧中，尽自己能力，宣传AA的恶劣，为AA拆砖卸瓦。虽然每个人能力影响有限，团结起
: 来，持之以恒，时间长了就是很大的力量。
: 主要策略：（1）现行AA违法了平等精神，也违反了当初AA的目的。（2）现行AA黑墨也
: 是受害者，而不是受益者。体现在ten strong reasons第八条。现行AA人人都是受害者
: 。当然有人不认可，不过要长期这样宣传。
: 欢迎指点，谢绝谩骂。
| o**********e
发帖数: 18403 | 3 我们华裔不要说大法官，总统影都没有，连大学校长都少得可怜。
就知道逼孩子爬藤。 别人亚裔领袖有的是，日裔，印度裔，韩裔，
越南裔，哪个孩子不比我们的有领导才能？ 就算没有AA，
你是藤校你选软骨头世家的还是领导世家的？ | c*******e
发帖数: 193 | 4 要自信！谁说别族孩子比我们的有领导才能？
谁说别人亚裔领袖就很多？华裔至少出过一个州长，若干市长，若干议员和若干部长。
即便目前有差距，可以承认差距，可以想办法追赶，短时间追不上也没关系，慢慢来。
自卑是最要不得的。
要不拘一格扩大生存空间，鼓励下一代不拘一格在各种行业发展。不能钻牛角尖，认为
某一项工作是重要的，其他都是浪费时间人力物力。华裔在美国的繁荣壮大需要各种人
才。
【在 o**********e 的大作中提到】
: 我们华裔不要说大法官，总统影都没有，连大学校长都少得可怜。
: 就知道逼孩子爬藤。 别人亚裔领袖有的是，日裔，印度裔，韩裔，
: 越南裔，哪个孩子不比我们的有领导才能？ 就算没有AA，
: 你是藤校你选软骨头世家的还是领导世家的？
| o**********e
发帖数: 18403 | 5 赞。 不出大法官，总统，大学领袖， 不要尽出些tiger mom高级黑就谢天谢地了。 |
|
