Columbia U. AsAm Debate on College Admissions (转载)# NextGeneration - 我爱宝宝
m*c
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: msgc (为了下一代免遭变态残害), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: Columbia U. AsAm Debate on College Admissions
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Apr 9 18:51:32 2013, 美东)
S. B. Woo was a panelist at Columbia Law School participating
in a debate on "Fisher vs. U. of TX", organized by Columbia
Asian Pacific American law students. His opponent was Khin
Mai Aung of AALDEF.
S.B.'s opening statement, which was limited to 4 minutes, is shown
below:
"When Affirmative Action was first proposed, minorities loved it. After
all, Affirmative Action means: Owing to the historic wrongs done by the
majority, minorities will have some advantage in (1) workplace hiring &
promotion, (2) government contracts, & (3) college & school admissions.
HOWEVER, BAD implementation of the affirmative college admission
program has ACTUALLY made it ANTI-affirmative. I'll submit to you 2
powerful statistical facts.
Fact 1: Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade found that in order for
AsAm students to gain equal access to elite colleges, their AVERAGE score
must be 140 pts. higher than whites; 270 pts. higher than Hispanics, and
450 pts. higher than blacks. Think! Why should AsAm applicants score
higher than whites? Isn't that ANTI-affirmative? Isn't that blatant
discrimination against us?
Fact 2: UCLA & Purdue professors have found that even black and
Hispanic students admitted through a strong racial preference suffered
from "ACADEMIC MIS-Match." Professors teach to the middle of the class.
Students whose ACADEMIC training is way below the average, can't
follow. So such students mostly either switched out of their chosen
major in Law and STEM disciplines or failed to graduate. AGAIN, isn't
that ANTI-affirmative?
Ms. Aung mentioned the advantages of diversity. No argument. But
must diversity be achieved at the expense of Asian Am. students?
Isn't the 14th amendment for the equal protection of all Americans a more
important consideration than diversity?
Ms. Aung CLAIMED that Hmong students might have benefited from the
program. If so, for every Hmong student to benefit, a HUGE number of
other AsAm students must suffer a disadvantage. BECAUSE only under
such an extremely distorted ratio of beneficiaries vs. those who were
damaged could the AVERAGE score, I repeat the AVERAGE score, for AsAm
students still be 140 pts. higher than whites.
Finally, let's get a historic perspective. The Am's Revolution for
independence was opposed by some American colonists. Women's
suffrage was strongly opposed by many society women of that period.
Field-slaves' plans to escape were often betrayed by house- slaves.
Strange! How a people's struggle for equal opportunity and freedom is
often opposed by some of its own members. It's strange indeed. END!"
Asian Am. orgs' EARLIER su 5c6 pport for an "affirmative college
admission"
policy was UNDERSTANDABLE. Their CONTINUED support of the same is
UNCONSCIONABLE, after the policy's anti-Asian Am. practices and its
damaging effect of academic mismatch were known. The following larger
AsAm orgs. still filed amicus brief in the Supreme court to support
the current admission plan:
AALDEF http://aaldef.org/contact-us/
APALC http://apalc.org/contact
AAJC i*********[email protected]
发信人: msgc (为了下一代免遭变态残害), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: Columbia U. AsAm Debate on College Admissions
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Apr 9 18:51:32 2013, 美东)
S. B. Woo was a panelist at Columbia Law School participating
in a debate on "Fisher vs. U. of TX", organized by Columbia
Asian Pacific American law students. His opponent was Khin
Mai Aung of AALDEF.
S.B.'s opening statement, which was limited to 4 minutes, is shown
below:
"When Affirmative Action was first proposed, minorities loved it. After
all, Affirmative Action means: Owing to the historic wrongs done by the
majority, minorities will have some advantage in (1) workplace hiring &
promotion, (2) government contracts, & (3) college & school admissions.
HOWEVER, BAD implementation of the affirmative college admission
program has ACTUALLY made it ANTI-affirmative. I'll submit to you 2
powerful statistical facts.
Fact 1: Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade found that in order for
AsAm students to gain equal access to elite colleges, their AVERAGE score
must be 140 pts. higher than whites; 270 pts. higher than Hispanics, and
450 pts. higher than blacks. Think! Why should AsAm applicants score
higher than whites? Isn't that ANTI-affirmative? Isn't that blatant
discrimination against us?
Fact 2: UCLA & Purdue professors have found that even black and
Hispanic students admitted through a strong racial preference suffered
from "ACADEMIC MIS-Match." Professors teach to the middle of the class.
Students whose ACADEMIC training is way below the average, can't
follow. So such students mostly either switched out of their chosen
major in Law and STEM disciplines or failed to graduate. AGAIN, isn't
that ANTI-affirmative?
Ms. Aung mentioned the advantages of diversity. No argument. But
must diversity be achieved at the expense of Asian Am. students?
Isn't the 14th amendment for the equal protection of all Americans a more
important consideration than diversity?
Ms. Aung CLAIMED that Hmong students might have benefited from the
program. If so, for every Hmong student to benefit, a HUGE number of
other AsAm students must suffer a disadvantage. BECAUSE only under
such an extremely distorted ratio of beneficiaries vs. those who were
damaged could the AVERAGE score, I repeat the AVERAGE score, for AsAm
students still be 140 pts. higher than whites.
Finally, let's get a historic perspective. The Am's Revolution for
independence was opposed by some American colonists. Women's
suffrage was strongly opposed by many society women of that period.
Field-slaves' plans to escape were often betrayed by house- slaves.
Strange! How a people's struggle for equal opportunity and freedom is
often opposed by some of its own members. It's strange indeed. END!"
Asian Am. orgs' EARLIER su 5c6 pport for an "affirmative college
admission"
policy was UNDERSTANDABLE. Their CONTINUED support of the same is
UNCONSCIONABLE, after the policy's anti-Asian Am. practices and its
damaging effect of academic mismatch were known. The following larger
AsAm orgs. still filed amicus brief in the Supreme court to support
the current admission plan:
AALDEF http://aaldef.org/contact-us/
APALC http://apalc.org/contact
AAJC i*********[email protected]