z********e
发帖数: 253 | 1 哪位给个中文翻译。
http://www.mercurynews.com/immigration/ci_25505076/affirmative-
Affirmative action debate create rifts in ethnic communities
The backlash by Chinese-American activists against a measure aimed at
restoring affirmative action in the admissions process at California's
public universities has set off political fisticuffs between ethnic groups
accustomed to battling side-by-side.
In a state where Latinos -- most of whom support SCA5, the proposed
constitutional amendment -- are about to become the largest ethnic group but
where Asian-Americans take up nearly 40 percent of all University of
California slots, the clash puts a spotlight on an evolving political
landscape in which members of minority groups now overwhelmingly make up the
majority of the state's population.
There are even schisms within the Asian-American community, where anger is
directed at Chinese-Americans who say they support affirmative action in
hiring, but fear its application at elite UC schools such as UC Berkeley and
UCLA, which now admit fewer than one in five in-state freshman applicants.
They say the policy will take precious university spots from their children
and give them to Latinos, blacks and students from other Asian and Pacific
Islander groups who currently have difficulty gaining access to state
schools.
Last year, 78 percent of Chinese-American students applying to a UC campus
landed a coveted spot in the freshman class, according to fall 2013 data
from UC. However, just 57 percent of Filipino-Americans and 48 percent of
Pacific Islanders were admitted, rates similar to those of blacks and
Latinos.
Fifty-five percent of Latino and 45 percent of African-American applicants
were admitted to UC last year, compared with 65 percent of white applicants.
California Democrats clearly are worried that the controversy might cause
significant numbers of Asian-Americans -- who now vote solidly Democratic --
to turn to the Republican Party. And the GOP has extended a welcome mat.
"Morally inconsistent" is what Karin Wang, of the Los Angeles civil rights
organization Asian Americans Advancing Justice, calls the embrace of
affirmative action in hiring, but not admissions. Supporters say affirmative
action will only help others, but it will not hurt excellent students. "It
shows self-interest operating above shared societal interests."
But that position is rejected by the 80-20 Initiative, whose fiery website
blasts affirmative action in college admissions. Last month, the site urged
California members to register as Republicans "to scare the (Democratic)
Party."
It's part of the group's plan to "play one party against another," said S.B.
Woo, who co-founded the nonpartisan Asian-American political action
committee. "I want the Democratic Party to know that if they keep on pushing
SCA5, then lots of people will be voting on the Republican side."
The group points to Princeton University research that found Asian-American
applicants need much higher SAT scores than all other groups to gain
admission to elite universities.
"The way Asian-American students are treated ... is a gross violation of the
14th Amendment," which requires equal protection under the law to all
people, Woo said. "Is it a surprise to you that in 1965, when affirmative
action first came out, every minority supported it? I did, too. But as used
in college admissions, it's hurting everyone."
If passed by voters, SCA5 would repeal parts of Proposition 209, a 1996
initiative that banned affirmative action and was at the time panned by
Asian-American voters.
A few weeks ago, the proposed constitutional amendment sailed through the
California Senate. Then, just as it appeared to be headed toward the
November ballot, a vociferous social media protest from Chinese-American
groups stopped it cold.
Assembly Speaker John Perez and Sen. Ed Hernandez, strong Latino backers of
SCA5, were forced to propose a number of statewide task force meetings to
reintroduce the amendment and perhaps rewrite parts that upset many Asian-
American voters.
"We suddenly found ourselves up against some pretty vile stuff," said
Hernandez, the amendment's author, about 80-20's website, which brashly
congratulated Asian activists for halting SCA5. Hernandez hopes the string
of panels will "heal any rifts" between Asian-Americans and Latinos.
"There was a bombardment of negative information from Chinese-language media
who framed it as a return to quotas," said Vincent Pan, executive director
of San Francisco's Chinese for Affirmative Action. "They whipped the issue
into a frenzy."
In simple terms, Hernandez said, affirmative action -- in a Proposition 209
universe -- can help make higher education accessible to a greater diversity
of students. "That's what big-time elite universities back East do," he
said. "They are ripping off many of our best and brightest black, Latino and
Asian students because we don't give them good chances at getting into
school."
Chinese-American parents, however, credit the UC system for treating their
children fairly because admissions are based solely on merit.
FLEXING POWER
As the debate rages, others see the clash as a watershed event for Asian-
Americans learning how to effectively flex their statewide political muscles
. "Our purpose is to educate the Asian community to stand up for their
rights," said Taylor Chow of Asian Americans for Political Advancement.
And yet, civil rights activist Wang warns, "In our really diverse state,
communities like ours have to learn to build bridges and coalitions on all
of these issues." Yes, she added, a group of Chinese-Americans altered the
political process, but "at the expense of alienating other communities."
Being cast as the enemy to other Asian and minority groups is something Chow
says Chinese-Americans are "seriously concerned" about. That's why his
Burlingame group will use other means to push for bringing more resources to
"helping those communities that are underrepresented in the university."
Woo says affirmative action will not become a litmus test. "We are not like
the pro-life or the pro-gun people," he said. "I don't believe (Asian-
Americans) can afford to pick one issue and say that everything else is not
important."
Henry Liem, who wrote a book in Vietnamese about affirmative action, notes
that the policy used to be about making amends for slavery and other gender
and racial injustices that hurt women and people of color.
But times have changed, argues Liem, a philosophy professor at San Jose City
College. With the white population shrinking, discussion around affirmative
action must change.
"It is now the minorities who ... have to figure out how to balance equal
opportunities for all with the recognition of merit and freedom." Because
Asian-Americans are doing so well, they lean toward merit and freedom, while
Latinos are more likely to embrace equal opportunity, Liem said.
"It's diverging in different directions among minorities, which is the
essence of the conflict," he said. "SCA5 is the first warning shot across
the table that the communities have to open a dialogue as soon as possible."
comments:
ranti • 42 minutes ago
blacks just want a free ride into the college system,just like they like
welfare and food stamps,they are more than willing to pay for it with their
Dignity,getting and taking and in this case Demanding extra points because
of the color of their skin,they are demanding to be classified as INFERIOR
TO WHITE AND ASIANS,They are sold on the reverse discrimination race baiters
,and perhaps they are right, on an even playing field they cannot compete
with the whites and asians!
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
JackW • an hour ago
The article itself is misleading in the way that it appears SCA5 is only
going to affect Chinese-American negatively in UC admission. Indian American
, Vietnamese American, Korean American, Japanese American, Lebanese American
, etc. (yeah, most of Asian Americans) will be affected negatively.
Why? Because the shared qualities among these groups are the strong focus on
academics, family values, hard working. Taking right to higher education
away from these groups are not only immoral, but illegal against our
constitution.
The SCA5 proponents always try to promote so-called diversity for certain
ethnic groups by using discriminatory behavior against other racial groups.
Does ends really justify means? Do SCA5 proponents really think
discrimination against different ethnic groups is what this country is
founded for?
SCA5 proponents, please answer these questions honestly, instead of keep
misleading people using "Affirmative Actions" which is really about ending
discrimination against minorities. Their action really tarnishes these words
and brings back evil systems like caste system or communism in California.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Brady Bell • an hour ago
Allan Bakke and Patrick Chavis. Just Google it.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
P Roppo • an hour ago
I like how the writers attempted to turn this into a Chinese vs Everybody
controversy, while ignoring that Vietnamese (they do live in San Jose too)
have very high admission rates.
All this is is another attempt to cover up the dismal educational habits of
Latinos.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dale Warner • 4 hours ago
This has a macro level that's interesting because it is what my friends and
I have been predicting since 1989. It goes like this. A century ago the
nation was believed to be supporting a unitary stance along the lines
advocated by Roosevelt the First, while a countervailing ideology argued for
what they called pluralism, a notion now so lightweight as to have been
incorporated into the "core values" of the nation, or so we are told.
Interestingly, the use of "pluralism" made its first appearance in American
politics as an argument advocated by the slave states to try to create an
ideological framework which would extend the lifeline of the slave states. A
lot of my own relatives fought to defeat such a construct in the 1860's
only to see the label returned with quite a vicious level of personal
attacks in the first half of the 20th Century. Nowadays people say "
pluralism" with their lips, but in their hearts just don't believe in it.
Pluralism then ideologically morphed into multiculturalism, chiefly noted as
doctrines that invited every one to participate except any of the diversity
of white American cultures which were not explicitly designed around the
concept of "allies." But multiculturalism didn't last, and has morphed on
the West Coast into multiracialism, and this is going to be marked by "
racial" groups' adoption of an attitude toward agency similar to political
parties. It will make such stresses on the Democratic Party that it will
fail before the Republican Party fails.
And the next step will be multinationalism which already exists in some
ethnic and racial groups with their congresses, conferences, and entities
expressing statehood status like a foreign policy, an attitude toward an
aggressive American projection of power all over the globe, and an attempt
to usurp other privileges of statehood. Not even imaginary, this is talked
about in academia here and there around the USA. So the next 50 years should
be very interesting and this California dust-up will provide the template.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Shirt Pants • 4 hours ago
Woah,take a look at that chart and one number sticks out. 68% of Vietnamese-
Americans applicants are admitted to the UC system which is still higher
than whites. Vietnam is still a poor country and is not sending us Google
engineers and neurosurgeons so you can't use that excuse. And Vietnamese-
Americans are as likely to attend a Title 1 school as an African-American
and Latino. Yet they still are admitted at a higher rate than whites. So the
proof is in the pudding, if you want to get into college just work hard and
study.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
NoRacism Shirt Pants • 3 hours ago
Well said! Asian parents, poor or not, always place education as #1 priority
. Whiners, please work on your own issues. Not all unfulfilled dreams can be
attributed to system/society.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Bob Richards • 5 hours ago
The race baiting politics of the Democrat party is beginning to circle
around and bite them in the backside - rather amusing and long overdue.
If Asians work harder and focus more on education than another demographic,
one would expect them to be more successful academically. Why should they be
discriminated against solely for their ethnicity?
Affirmative action is blatant racism - there's no way around that.
Perhaps the state should incarcerate innocent Asians randomly because Asians
are under represented in the prison population?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
firm soil • 5 hours ago
"affirmative action ... as used in college admissions, it's hurting everyone
." is factually false!!!
Everyone, really!!!
Does Mercurynews even do a basic check on such horribly erroneous falsehoods!
Majority of these asian/indian/japanese kids' test scores are padded with
expensive private coaching sessions, not to mention that a lot their parents
who have masters degrees and PhD's are already doing extra teaching at home
that is not available to poor minority kids whose family members are not
highly educated, rich, or inclined to spend loads of money to give their
children an unfair advantage in taking tests!
The playing field that uses test score only for comparison is not at all a
level one, and is dangerously rigged against african-american and hispanic
kids from poor neighborhoods and failing government schools!
University of Texas is more diverse in that it allows top 10% of kids from
even the poorest of the poor african-american and hispanic neighborhoods in.
In UT the poor bright kids at least get a chance, in UC they do not!
How come UC and Mercurynews do not publish the ugly truth that these asian/
indian/japanese kids hail from school districts that belong to rich
neighborhoods where the junior/middle/high school rankings and quality of
education are higher to begin with?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
JackW firm soil • 37 minutes ago
Your argument is factually wrong. Like others have pointed out, UC admits
top 9% of any high school graduates. Don't label most Asian-Americans are
rich - many are poor ones coming here with pennies. They are certainly in
disadvantage against natively born Black and Hispanics.
Let me ask you a question: should UC admission give preferences to:
1) An Asian American
2) A Black American
3) A Hispanic American
If they all live around the same neighborhood and attend the same schools?
If your answer is NO, then there should be no race consideration in college
admission. And I'd assume your answer should be NO since your argument is
all about the poor neighborhood. If your answer is YES, it gets even more
interesting since it sounds you support racism or caste system in the worst
form.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
firm soil JackW • 33 minutes ago
"UC admits top 9% of any high school graduates" is false. There is no such
policy. UC already gives preference to advantaged kids from rich
neighborhoods.
Unlike me you are the one who uses the term race!
P.S. - Poor asian kids from chinatown are not getting to UC, rich asian kids
from million dollar plus homes of Cupertino are!
• Reply•Share › One other person is typing…
Avatar
JJL firm soil • 4 hours ago
It's top 9% in california. Really, you should at least look up some facts
before typing all this. Socioeconomic AA is alive and well in California.
The only thing that has been banned is discrimination on the basis of race.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
NoRacism firm soil • 4 hours ago
Since when being fair means one doesn't have to work on their problems (aka.
no dedication and investment on academy) but find fault from other
hardworking people, and FORCE other people to AA in name of fair. 100% hate,
jealousy and racism!
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
firm soil NoRacism • 4 hours ago
"hardworking" => Coming from richer school districts, more expensive private
coaching, more extra help from more educated parents, etc.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
NoRacism firm soil • 3 hours ago
So what you are against is race + being 'rich' and 'expensive'. Racism +
communism. Well done Democ.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
firm soil NoRacism • 30 minutes ago
You are for rich advantaged kids and unscientific/unfair measurement.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Cliff Geneson firm soil • 5 hours ago
What a load of racist crap you are spewing.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
firm soil Cliff Geneson • 4 hours ago
The scientific and logical part of Cliff's statement rests on the term "crap
" ;)
He says that University of Texas and most all others are racist.
He says that not admitting students from poor school districts is not racist.
He says that more private tutoring to get test advantage is racist.
He says that creating a level playing field is racist.
P.S. - To the proponents of test score is god measurement system.
Fact: International students in STEM fields who are admitted have higher
test scores that CA students, so why discriminate against them by accepting
them at a lower rate to fill the CA reservation quota?
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Thermopylae • 5 hours ago
When white people become the minority do you think they will be excluded
from Affirmative Action programs?
• Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Cliff Geneson • 12 hours ago
One side is willing to work, the other is willing to subsist on trough money. | j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 2 "Last year, 78 percent of Chinese-American students applying to a UC campus
landed a coveted spot in the freshman class, according to fall 2013 data
from UC. However, just 57 percent of Filipino-Americans and 48 percent of
Pacific Islanders were admitted, rates similar to those of blacks and
Latinos."
很恶毒啊，直接把华裔又从亚裔里面分割出来，单独拿来当靶子。
另外只看族裔录取率，不看为什么被录取，这是直接承认录取要按族裔比例来，无视现
在加州的宪法 | l**t
发帖数: 6971 | 3 老中不要怕被single out。民权运动就是老黑单干，结果只有老黑涌现出了强大的政治
组织。再说了，Asian他要再分出好几类，那犹太人是不是也要从白人里面单独分出来
？谁要是敢开这个头，犹太人先恨死他了。 | l**t
发帖数: 6971 | 4 Chinese-American parents, however, credit the UC system for treating their
children fairly because admissions are based solely on merit.
这也完全是谎言。现在UC已经绕着弯子照顾老墨了，家庭经济状况差加分，父母离婚加
分，家里没有上大学的加分。要是admission solely based on merit，估计UC学生三
分之二都是Asian了。 | n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 5 就是。当年那样的舆论环境，老黑只有一成人口，照样轰轰烈烈。
【在 l**t 的大作中提到】
: 老中不要怕被single out。民权运动就是老黑单干，结果只有老黑涌现出了强大的政治
: 组织。再说了，Asian他要再分出好几类，那犹太人是不是也要从白人里面单独分出来
: ？谁要是敢开这个头，犹太人先恨死他了。
| n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 6 而且based solely on merit有什么问题？
【在 l**t 的大作中提到】
: Chinese-American parents, however, credit the UC system for treating their
: children fairly because admissions are based solely on merit.
: 这也完全是谎言。现在UC已经绕着弯子照顾老墨了，家庭经济状况差加分，父母离婚加
: 分，家里没有上大学的加分。要是admission solely based on merit，估计UC学生三
: 分之二都是Asian了。
| w*******r
发帖数: 7276 | 7 就是，只有大SB从今以后还会再投民主党的票
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】
: 而且based solely on merit有什么问题？
| w*******r
发帖数: 7276 | 8 看见民主党的无耻了吧，故意单提华人家长，好像华人孩子都是靠照顾进了UC的。故意
造成华人与其他亚裔的对立，搞得好像其他亚裔能从SCA5得到好处似的
but
【在 z********e 的大作中提到】
: 哪位给个中文翻译。
: http://www.mercurynews.com/immigration/ci_25505076/affirmative-
: Affirmative action debate create rifts in ethnic communities
: The backlash by Chinese-American activists against a measure aimed at
: restoring affirmative action in the admissions process at California's
: public universities has set off political fisticuffs between ethnic groups
: accustomed to battling side-by-side.
: In a state where Latinos -- most of whom support SCA5, the proposed
: constitutional amendment -- are about to become the largest ethnic group but
: where Asian-Americans take up nearly 40 percent of all University of
| g**8
发帖数: 4951 | 9 依照美国政治和文化的惯例，对一个族裔单列和特别强调与其他族裔的矛盾，是非常非
常政治不正确的话题，这样做是应该非常谨慎的。sca5开始的时候，主流媒体死活也没
有任何报道，结果现在一报道就是华人如何。这个报道非常非常的不应该。8０－2０应
该抗议这个报道，应该给rebuttal。
不论左右，美国社会对华人的歧视性文化态度，是根深蒂固的，华人也应该更加策略和
狡猾。但是事已至此，在对手已经亮刀，不还手是死，还手也是死的目前情况下，只能
撕破脸彻底斗下去了，哪怕就是华人自己。
别指望阿三棒子，这些族裔从来就不会真的和华人一条心。从sca5开始到现在，所有这
些其他族裔的政客完全不动声色，我再次认为华人应该强烈要求今年参选的所有主要阿
三政客在此问题上表态，然后以那些人其中的表态回击这篇文章类似的恶毒单挑华人的
做法。
but
【在 z********e 的大作中提到】
: 哪位给个中文翻译。
: http://www.mercurynews.com/immigration/ci_25505076/affirmative-
: Affirmative action debate create rifts in ethnic communities
: The backlash by Chinese-American activists against a measure aimed at
: restoring affirmative action in the admissions process at California's
: public universities has set off political fisticuffs between ethnic groups
: accustomed to battling side-by-side.
: In a state where Latinos -- most of whom support SCA5, the proposed
: constitutional amendment -- are about to become the largest ethnic group but
: where Asian-Americans take up nearly 40 percent of all University of
| g**8
发帖数: 4951 | 10 还有，8０－2０和吴老先生应该小心刻骨仇恨任何华人政治势力的连钓局也好，棱镜也
好对他们全方位监控，找茬，钓鱼，一句话，对华人迫害。我为什么这么说，一是最近
余的事情，百分之百与颜色发案有关。或者民主党内西非势力报复，或者连钓局抓住这
个华人社会高度仇恨三个华人的时机，急急忙忙地赶紧下罪搞掉余，这样华人社区反弹
会最小，甚至一众拍手称快。
我为什么认为吴先生应该小心，还因为几个月前那个吉米事件尾声的时候有一次看到军
版上有个贴。是那个洛杉矶的天天同学发的：标题是：吴，你别吓唬天天我说什么连钓
局会注意我天天的，大意是：吴给天天同学打招呼说，适可而止，注意言行，因为连钓
局会注意他的。结果这个天天同学，不知深浅，不懂好歹的把吴老先生的告诫给发了贴
天下告知，以示其坚决立场或者作为表达对吴先生不满的说明了。
我当时看了那个贴就一个感觉：吴先生很可能意识到什么。倒是天天这样不解风情的华
人，令人感慨。把老先生的好意嘱咐告知天下，呵呵。
说回颜色发案，应该明白，真正的原因：美国社会对华人的歧视和轻视甚至敌意。华人
自己有时的不解风情和不够政治手段圆润。至少，不要再刻骨仇恨华人政客自己了，哪
怕他们就是都差不多的不堪。
再次说一遍：阿三和棒子在政坛会疯狂压倒华人。我没别的本事，有些尖酸刻薄几年来
看我不顺眼的版上小人，估计又要说我说教了。那我就再强烈建议一次：
把水引向阿三！今年阿三民主党罗卡那出来选国会议员，阿三共和党来选州长，阿三民
主党还有一个选州参议员，为什么不把水引向阿三！让他们表态！
【在 g**8 的大作中提到】
: 依照美国政治和文化的惯例，对一个族裔单列和特别强调与其他族裔的矛盾，是非常非
: 常政治不正确的话题，这样做是应该非常谨慎的。sca5开始的时候，主流媒体死活也没
: 有任何报道，结果现在一报道就是华人如何。这个报道非常非常的不应该。8０－2０应
: 该抗议这个报道，应该给rebuttal。
: 不论左右，美国社会对华人的歧视性文化态度，是根深蒂固的，华人也应该更加策略和
: 狡猾。但是事已至此，在对手已经亮刀，不还手是死，还手也是死的目前情况下，只能
: 撕破脸彻底斗下去了，哪怕就是华人自己。
: 别指望阿三棒子，这些族裔从来就不会真的和华人一条心。从sca5开始到现在，所有这
: 些其他族裔的政客完全不动声色，我再次认为华人应该强烈要求今年参选的所有主要阿
: 三政客在此问题上表态，然后以那些人其中的表态回击这篇文章类似的恶毒单挑华人的
| | | h****n
发帖数: 2250 | 11 民主党担心力推affiative action 和英语西语双语教育，会把15%的亚裔推到共和党，
所以要开始分化亚裔，希望减少损失。
他们疯狗般地乱咬，说明他们目前还害怕亚裔的势力。越是疯狂，说明他们越是害怕。
同时，他们还想利用拿华裔作靶子，把西裔选民刺激出来，支持民主党。
几年以后，亚裔比例下去了，就不会有现在的恐惧了，更加肆无忌惮了。历史给我们的
机会，稍纵即逝，我们要珍惜。 | t*******e
发帖数: 1633 | | i*****a
发帖数: 7272 | 13 NOT SURPRISED AT ALL. 前几天我问的问题，被版主合集了，其中就有：
2. 印度裔在干什么？这个法案针对亚裔，其它的亚裔尤其是印裔，韩裔，日裔，还有
华裔老移民在做什么有同学了解吗？这些族裔在美国的时间比我们长，根基比我们稳，
他们在干什么？为什么LA TIMES 只提到华裔？这样对我们的政治诉求有什么影响？
3. Affirmative action 是quota 吗？ 前者是给予小范围的优先考虑，后者按人口比
例来录取学生，这两者对版上有些同学有区别吗？
4. 投票的同学到底把自己看成是美国人还是中国人？我们没有双重国籍，中美关系能
和亚裔争权混为一谈吗？
华裔被single out 出来不是好事，大家要和别的族裔通通气。
but
【在 z********e 的大作中提到】
: 哪位给个中文翻译。
: http://www.mercurynews.com/immigration/ci_25505076/affirmative-
: Affirmative action debate create rifts in ethnic communities
: The backlash by Chinese-American activists against a measure aimed at
: restoring affirmative action in the admissions process at California's
: public universities has set off political fisticuffs between ethnic groups
: accustomed to battling side-by-side.
: In a state where Latinos -- most of whom support SCA5, the proposed
: constitutional amendment -- are about to become the largest ethnic group but
: where Asian-Americans take up nearly 40 percent of all University of
| k****m
发帖数: 4670 | 14 下面的评论倒是正常的人多
让他们宣传去吧
不一定起的是啥作用呢 | k****m
发帖数: 4670 | 15 http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_25505077/affirmative-ac
另一篇文章下的评论
disqcoduck •a day ago
Affirmative action is about equality of opportunity, equal access, fair
treatment. Certain groups have perverted AA to mean equality of outcome,
special access, preferential treatment.
Asian-American fully support Affirmative Action. Asian-American do not
support preference, unfair treatment. SCA5 is all about re-injecting race as
a special preference when it comes to college admission. SCA5 seeks to
provide special treatment based on superficial, qualitative criteria that
does not actually seek to help those who really need it. Those that have
truly disadvantaged backgrounds based on such real issues as low-income, low
-educated families. Any judgement, any treatment based on race is racism, no
matter the reason or objective.
The reporters cite "moral consistency". I accuse those who support race-
based preference with blatant moral-inconsistency. If they were consistent,
they'd admit that Asians have excelled academically, despite historical
discrimination, despite having no special advantage provided to them. Those
who support equal outcome do not seem to support equal outcome when it comes
to athletic scholarships, equal outcomes when it comes to access to such
high-paying professions as sports, entertainment, or even politics. Asians
represent 14% of the California population. If you look a elected state and
federal officials, Asians represent just 4% of those elected. Where's your
moral consistency when it comes to these? Or are some forms of moral
consistency more important than other forms of moral consistence?
Inconvenient facts in the face of inconvenient truths. |
|
