t****1
发帖数: 827 | 1 亲爱的华人同胞们：
美国最高法院正在重新考虑是否需要禁止大学招生考虑种族因素。
美国宪法14修正案“平等保护条款”保证给予每一个人均等机会，而不是针对种族而区
别对待。我们相信，高校招生政策应该符合美国宪法14修正案的精神。很遗憾，亚裔学
生长期以来遭受严重的歧视。“全国高校的经验研究”（NSCE）项目进行了超过9000个
学生采访。普林斯顿大学社会学家托马斯Espenshade进行严格的回归分析，得出如下结
果，此此结果也被新闻媒体广泛引用：如果想被名牌大学录取，在其它条件类似的情况
下，亚裔学生 SAT 成绩必须要比白人高140分，比西班牙裔高280分，比黑人高450分（
总分1600）。(这个分析已经把性别，GPA， 体育等方面的因素考虑在内)
目前已经有41483参与投票，发出我们对大学招生中的种族歧视的抗议。我们
还需要9000多个投票，以显示我们的关注力度。请确保你的配偶，孩子，父母，朋友，
和所有同事能够参与这个请愿。 （如果您是永久居民或者公民， 请参与这项签名请愿
活动，以改变亚洲人被歧视的命运。)
请点击以下的链接参与
http://admin.80-20nj.info/cgi/80/e?l=8/11e/f&w=no
Dear Fellow Asian Americans:
41,483 people have shown the courage of their conviction by taking the 80-20
EF Survey. We
need 9,000 more votes to show the INTENSITY of your concerns. A 50,000 total
would
impress the Supreme Court, as few issues in the US can mobilize an
equivalent 1 million people
when projected to the general population (of which Asian Americans are 5%)
http://admin.80-20nj.info/cgi/80/e?l=8/11e/f&w=no
Send it across the finish line. YOU can do it by ensuring your spouse,
youths, parents, friends,
and colleagues all VOTE. (Permanent residents and citizens only)
Take the Survey NOW! Do Your Part to Improve our Destiny.
Is the racial preferences in college admission merely a “tie breaker”, a
“nudge factor”,
and “one in many” consideration?
The “National Study of College Experience” (NSCE) project conducted over
9000 student
interviews. Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade performed rigorous
regression analysis on
the vast NSCE database and released the empirical findings in his 2009 book
[1], which was
widely cited by the news media: To receive equal consideration by elite
colleges, Asian
Americans must outperform Whites by 140 points, Hispanics by 280 points,
Blacks by 450
points in SAT (Total 1600). The result is not a simplistic test score
comparison: The
differences have been controlled for other variables such as sex,
citizenship, athlete and legacy
status, # of AP tests and SAT II test, GPA, class rank, National merit
scholar status, and high
school type.
We believe college admission policy should reflect the common American ideal
of Equal
Opportunity, afforded to every individual through the “Equal Protection
Clause” in the 14th
Amendment of the US Constitution. The admission policy should not
discriminate against any
group of people for innate collective characteristics, such as race and
ethnicity, which an
individual can NOT change. Instead, it should be firmly based on individual
merit, which is to
be broadly defined to include academic qualifications necessary for
successful college learning,
and personal character strengths such as perseverance, hardworking ethic,
leadership skills, and
individual initiative to overcome adverse conditions, such as those imposed
by socioeconomic
status.
Race, ethnicity and national origin ar 629d e PROTECTED categories in the US
constitution, for good
reasons. In a job interview, if you ask a candidate’s race, you could be
sued and your company
could be investigated for racial discrimination under the “Equal Protection
Clause”. Why is
college admission so different? Not only the race question MUST be asked,
you MUST answer
(or your last name would be Googled to determine your race), and your answer
MUST be used
as the basis for differential treatment. Is this not institutionalized
reverse discrimination?
Furthermore, large racial preferences also hurt the intended beneficiaries.
It imposes an
“academic mismatch” among the admitted students, reducing the efficiency
and quality of
classroom instruction to all students, and leading to academically weaker
students to self-
segregate into less challenging classes, thereby reducing classroom
diversity [2]. The US Civil
Right Commission issued a 2010 report about the disconcerting role of racial
preferences played
in undermining minority graduation in science and engineering programs [3].
In professions
where universal qualification exams are required, such as legal service,
higher numbers of
“racially preferred” students entering the law schools did not lead to an
increased numbers of
“racially preferred” lawyers because of the high attrition rate [4]. Large
racial preferences
were also found to hurt the minority pipeline to academia [5].
It is time to do what every other developed nation does, which is NOT to
even ask
the race question in college application. | s********e
发帖数: 11693 | | H******7
发帖数: 34403 | 3 这其实是80-20的招人广告帖。稍有法律常识的都知道最高法院判决从来不基于民意，
有些法官还刻意不看报纸电视避免被民意误导。80-20这样的作法其实是假公济私。不
过这个问题不能讨论，我已看到mailing list上有出来普法的律师被扣上亚奸的帽子被
骂个狗血喷头了。 | s*******e
发帖数: 3042 | 4
If they are Asian attorney supporting affirmative action, this Hat serves
them well.
【在 H******7 的大作中提到】
: 这其实是80-20的招人广告帖。稍有法律常识的都知道最高法院判决从来不基于民意，
: 有些法官还刻意不看报纸电视避免被民意误导。80-20这样的作法其实是假公济私。不
: 过这个问题不能讨论，我已看到mailing list上有出来普法的律师被扣上亚奸的帽子被
: 骂个狗血喷头了。
| H******7
发帖数: 34403 | 5 帽店老板好
【在 s*******e 的大作中提到】
:
: If they are Asian attorney supporting affirmative action, this Hat serves
: them well.
| c*******t
发帖数: 953 | 6
假公济私又怎样？亚裔就是缺乏带头人，80-20要做带头人很好，我支持。中国人里面
从来不缺少泼冷水、唱反调的，我见一个骂一个。
【在 H******7 的大作中提到】
: 这其实是80-20的招人广告帖。稍有法律常识的都知道最高法院判决从来不基于民意，
: 有些法官还刻意不看报纸电视避免被民意误导。80-20这样的作法其实是假公济私。不
: 过这个问题不能讨论，我已看到mailing list上有出来普法的律师被扣上亚奸的帽子被
: 骂个狗血喷头了。
| h********8
发帖数: 7355 | 7 泼冷水、唱反调的是极少数，自命不凡，令人讨厌。
【在 c*******t 的大作中提到】
:
: 假公济私又怎样？亚裔就是缺乏带头人，80-20要做带头人很好，我支持。中国人里面
: 从来不缺少泼冷水、唱反调的，我见一个骂一个。
|
|
