Go for a run if you don't get into your choice college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action does boost minority students into the top schools even if they are under qualified academically. That is the point— in the service of righting systemic and historical inequity. At the same time, is still rude and antisocial to point out that any individual person may have gotten in through AA.

Im South Asian, a liberal, and feel very mixed about AA, not only because it discriminates against Asian students but also because it creates the unfair dynamic where other minorities are seen as having gotten in with lower standards, which is unfair to those who are highly qualified. I think these students need a lesson in graciousness and how to cope with disappointments rather than more indoctrination in why AA is the only way.

Thank you for your nuanced explanation. I'm more anti-affirmative action than you. I do not believe the children of today should be discriminated against because of the sins of a minority's forefathers. There are millions of people in America right now whose ancestors were nowhere near America during those benighted times, and who contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. Coming to the USA is not an implicit agreement to shoulder the guilt and shame of racist white slaveholders and Amerindian murderers, or anyone else who forced Chinese laborers to build railroads, or who interned Japanese families in concentration camps.

I greatly appreciate living here in a liberal part of the country, since it's less worse than living in a conservative part of the country, but from where I'm standing, Asians are perpetually discriminated against.

- east Asian

Well you fled your own country and came to a country that owed these people. Think of it like a lean on a house you volunteer to buy. You want the benefits of owning that house, then you need to pay off the debt.

This is actually a terrible analogy. How much does each person have to contribute to pay off this debt? And what about families that are fleeing to the US who have already contributed massively to the US? What about Iraqi and Afghan and Vietnamese translators for the US military? You're telling me that those families, who have sacrified so much for the US, and rightfully seek asylum in this country are "volunteering" to buy this house?

Not saying your families from those Asians countries didn’t do a job for the good of the United States, but those translators were paid and the US would still be a super power if they hadn’t. There would be no United States, if it hadn’t been for the slaves whose decedents you are so worried about. They never got paid.

You just need to pay your taxes and let the government pay the debt, but let’s not claim a group has been mistreated for so long is getting treated better than anyone else. That claim is just not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t it statistically true that all things being equal, a URM applicant has a higher likelihood of admission at a competitive college than a white or Asian applicant?

So if you are a private college counselor sitting down with a URM family, wouldn’t it be accurate to explain the URM designation works to their advantage and, if anything, lean into it and join URM organizations, pursue URM programs and scholarships, etc.?

That’s very different from saying a person was admitted ONLY based on URM status, but surely it would be weird to explain to students that URM status is not a beneficial factor.

If it’s not a beneficial factor, then there wouldn’t be a need to fight for affirmative action to stay and place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it statistically true that all things being equal, a URM applicant has a higher likelihood of admission at a competitive college than a white or Asian applicant?

So if you are a private college counselor sitting down with a URM family, wouldn’t it be accurate to explain the URM designation works to their advantage and, if anything, lean into it and join URM organizations, pursue URM programs and scholarships, etc.?

That’s very different from saying a person was admitted ONLY based on URM status, but surely it would be weird to explain to students that URM status is not a beneficial factor.

If it’s not a beneficial factor, then there wouldn’t be a need to fight for affirmative action to stay and place.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action does boost minority students into the top schools even if they are under qualified academically. That is the point— in the service of righting systemic and historical inequity. At the same time, is still rude and antisocial to point out that any individual person may have gotten in through AA.

Im South Asian, a liberal, and feel very mixed about AA, not only because it discriminates against Asian students but also because it creates the unfair dynamic where other minorities are seen as having gotten in with lower standards, which is unfair to those who are highly qualified. I think these students need a lesson in graciousness and how to cope with disappointments rather than more indoctrination in why AA is the only way.

Thank you for your nuanced explanation. I'm more anti-affirmative action than you. I do not believe the children of today should be discriminated against because of the sins of a minority's forefathers. There are millions of people in America right now whose ancestors were nowhere near America during those benighted times, and who contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. Coming to the USA is not an implicit agreement to shoulder the guilt and shame of racist white slaveholders and Amerindian murderers, or anyone else who forced Chinese laborers to build railroads, or who interned Japanese families in concentration camps.

I greatly appreciate living here in a liberal part of the country, since it's less worse than living in a conservative part of the country, but from where I'm standing, Asians are perpetually discriminated against.

- east Asian

Well you fled your own country and came to a country that owed these people. Think of it like a lean on a house you volunteer to buy. You want the benefits of owning that house, then you need to pay off the debt.

First of all, it’s lien.

Second of all, this country was built on the free labor of East Asians too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not very kind of GDS students to act with such racism. The social justice side of GDS is all fine and dandy until college decisions come out and then the true racism peaks through. I say this as a liberal, this is why we are ridiculed all the time. Liberals talk about equity etc but with something is perceived as interfering with your white privilege, it’s a problem.

The school just got done lecturing seniors about why it’s not cool to say black students are getting into college because AA and they have the audacity to hbe the following reaction:

Holder said students were talking about the meeting in the hallways after it ended. “My friends were talking about it like ‘What just happened?’ and ‘Why did we need that? It was unnecessary,’” she said.

After all these years at GDS, these students don’t know the inherit value of their rich families with elite colleges than they are born with they start off at first base yet they yell outrage when a Black student gets hit by a ball and can walk to first.

This is pathetic. I’m outraged. Why would any family want their kid at this pretentious and fake environment, yet alone pay $50K+?

I think the quotes you are including here is misleading. The article made clear that the people who organized the meeting did a poor job of explaining what incident prompted the meeting, and then started rambling about the history of affirmative action. It sounds like there was no meeting agenda provided at the start, and many students were legitimately confused about what the meeting was meant to accomplish. In the thread about the Auger Bit’s coverage of GDS teachers’ use of Chat GPT for report card comments, I shared this take from a student which I find quite thoughtful (though it doesn’t make most of the meeting organizers look good):

Freeman said at one point, Livelli said that since you don’t know what goes into people’s college processes, you can’t attribute a person’s acceptance or rejection from a college to their race. “It felt like the implication was—certainly, that’s true—but the implication was ‘You can’t act like it’s a factor at all because you don’t know,’” he said. “It seems like the outburst that caused the whole controversy was somebody acting like it was the one singular factor, which obviously doesn’t make sense—that’s wrong. But what’s equally wrong is pretending like it’s not a factor at all. It affects admission; it just felt a little disingenuous.”

Freeman added that comments from college counselors essentially told students to “discontinue” negative thoughts they had when they were faced with rejection—thoughts like “I didn’t get in, and it’s because of this.” He said they “spoke extremely euphemistically about it, which also, I didn’t like,” and added that he thought the college counselors’ comments made it seem like they didn’t regard students’ discontented feelings during the college process as valid.

“It’s understandable you would be upset that you didn’t get in. It’s not understandable that it came out that way,” he said of the comments that prompted the meeting, “but you need help working through it. And I think the decision to just be like, ‘Oh, hey, just don’t talk about it at all’ or ‘Just pretend like you’re happy when you’re not’ is definitely not the solution. To me, it feels like bottling it up like that is what’s going to lead to the hurtful outbursts, as opposed to the healthy expressions of your own disappointment.” He added that he agreed with an idea Wong shared that students should try to work through their emotions in a healthy way, by doing something like going on a run, if they feel disappointed with results they receive from colleges.

“facilitators revealed that “someone—or many people—made comments about how people of color were only getting into their ED schools or really competitive schools because of their race and affirmative action.”

The student took away “why did we need that and it was unnecessary”.

No misconstruing that. The student quoted is an elitist privileged snowflake.

The exact quote from the piece was that the student heard others in the hallway saying “why did we need that and it was unnecessary.” It’s not actually clear that she feels the same way. I can say, having had kids at GDS and other similar privates that every time the kids get pulled into a meeting to be lectured on any topic the reaction is “Why did we need that and it was unnecessary.” They are teenagers. These schools have a habit of pulling a whole class into a meeting to be lectured about the actions of some subset of the group. They are overscheduled and stressed out, and they get annoyed by having one more thing put on their plate. I’m not saying that’s right, but its not indicative that they are elite privileged snowflakes. A lot of meetings like this happen on a variety of topics. It’s exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what happens when you have a CCO that purposefully withholds data and specializes in generalizations. As a parent, I would have loved to have my kids attend a teach-in about affirmative action with data, rather than assume that 1) the kids understand the real complexities of affirmative action and college admissions, and 2) not have any questions about the changing landscape of college admissions.
Of course saying that certain kids got into top schools because of race is boorish and disrespectful. But if the CCO or the 12th grade dean or even a history teacher, maybe Sue Ikenberry who teaches politics, had pre-emptively had a frank discussion about affirmative action and how it affects college admissions, this whole episode could have been avoided. For goodness sakes, Ketanji Brown Jackson was a GDS parent! The school has resources to have a compelling conversation about affirmative action and college admissions. Why not also talk about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen, and URM status as potential "hooks" in the college process? Why not discuss the very real disparities in standardized test scores across racial categories and the challenges those numbers present for college admissions? Why not discuss the problematic umbrella of "Asian" in college admissions?
I'm not surprised that the purposeful lack of transparency in college admissions at GDS is backfiring. Kids are applying to schools with so little real guidance. Visiting one of the college counselors at GDS is like visiting the oracle at Delphi--you ask questions and hope to get a response that provides some clarity.

But wouldn’t that lead to uncomfortable discussions about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen (really, not so much. Any GDS Dreamers? No?) and URM status (plus sib preference, of course - esp this year) as hooks in the process for admission to GDS itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action does boost minority students into the top schools even if they are under qualified academically. That is the point— in the service of righting systemic and historical inequity. At the same time, is still rude and antisocial to point out that any individual person may have gotten in through AA.

Im South Asian, a liberal, and feel very mixed about AA, not only because it discriminates against Asian students but also because it creates the unfair dynamic where other minorities are seen as having gotten in with lower standards, which is unfair to those who are highly qualified. I think these students need a lesson in graciousness and how to cope with disappointments rather than more indoctrination in why AA is the only way.

Thank you for your nuanced explanation. I'm more anti-affirmative action than you. I do not believe the children of today should be discriminated against because of the sins of a minority's forefathers. There are millions of people in America right now whose ancestors were nowhere near America during those benighted times, and who contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. Coming to the USA is not an implicit agreement to shoulder the guilt and shame of racist white slaveholders and Amerindian murderers, or anyone else who forced Chinese laborers to build railroads, or who interned Japanese families in concentration camps.

I greatly appreciate living here in a liberal part of the country, since it's less worse than living in a conservative part of the country, but from where I'm standing, Asians are perpetually discriminated against.

- east Asian

Well you fled your own country and came to a country that owed these people. Think of it like a lean on a house you volunteer to buy. You want the benefits of owning that house, then you need to pay off the debt.

First of all, it’s lien.

Second of all, this country was built on the free labor of East Asians too.

East Asians? Free Labor in the United States? I don’t think so. If anything East Asians hat slaves too on American soil. Two of the worst slave owners in history were Chang and Eng Bunker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what happens when you have a CCO that purposefully withholds data and specializes in generalizations. As a parent, I would have loved to have my kids attend a teach-in about affirmative action with data, rather than assume that 1) the kids understand the real complexities of affirmative action and college admissions, and 2) not have any questions about the changing landscape of college admissions.
Of course saying that certain kids got into top schools because of race is boorish and disrespectful. But if the CCO or the 12th grade dean or even a history teacher, maybe Sue Ikenberry who teaches politics, had pre-emptively had a frank discussion about affirmative action and how it affects college admissions, this whole episode could have been avoided. For goodness sakes, Ketanji Brown Jackson was a GDS parent! The school has resources to have a compelling conversation about affirmative action and college admissions. Why not also talk about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen, and URM status as potential "hooks" in the college process? Why not discuss the very real disparities in standardized test scores across racial categories and the challenges those numbers present for college admissions? Why not discuss the problematic umbrella of "Asian" in college admissions?
I'm not surprised that the purposeful lack of transparency in college admissions at GDS is backfiring. Kids are applying to schools with so little real guidance. Visiting one of the college counselors at GDS is like visiting the oracle at Delphi--you ask questions and hope to get a response that provides some clarity.

But wouldn’t that lead to uncomfortable discussions about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen (really, not so much. Any GDS Dreamers? No?) and URM status (plus sib preference, of course - esp this year) as hooks in the process for admission to GDS itself?

Maybe, but GDS admissions is pretty transparent about hooks for siblings and faculty kids. Moreover, GDS is about as transparent as its peer schools when it comes to admissions for their own school. GDS is behind its peers when it comes to college counseling transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what happens when you have a CCO that purposefully withholds data and specializes in generalizations. As a parent, I would have loved to have my kids attend a teach-in about affirmative action with data, rather than assume that 1) the kids understand the real complexities of affirmative action and college admissions, and 2) not have any questions about the changing landscape of college admissions.
Of course saying that certain kids got into top schools because of race is boorish and disrespectful. But if the CCO or the 12th grade dean or even a history teacher, maybe Sue Ikenberry who teaches politics, had pre-emptively had a frank discussion about affirmative action and how it affects college admissions, this whole episode could have been avoided. For goodness sakes, Ketanji Brown Jackson was a GDS parent! The school has resources to have a compelling conversation about affirmative action and college admissions. Why not also talk about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen, and URM status as potential "hooks" in the college process? Why not discuss the very real disparities in standardized test scores across racial categories and the challenges those numbers present for college admissions? Why not discuss the problematic umbrella of "Asian" in college admissions?
I'm not surprised that the purposeful lack of transparency in college admissions at GDS is backfiring. Kids are applying to schools with so little real guidance. Visiting one of the college counselors at GDS is like visiting the oracle at Delphi--you ask questions and hope to get a response that provides some clarity.

But wouldn’t that lead to uncomfortable discussions about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen (really, not so much. Any GDS Dreamers? No?) and URM status (plus sib preference, of course - esp this year) as hooks in the process for admission to GDS itself?

Maybe, but GDS admissions is pretty transparent about hooks for siblings and faculty kids. Moreover, GDS is about as transparent as its peer schools when it comes to admissions for their own school. GDS is behind its peers when it comes to college counseling transparency.

GDS doesn’t control which students are most desired by colleges. The best thing to do is hire a college counselor outside of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action does boost minority students into the top schools even if they are under qualified academically. That is the point— in the service of righting systemic and historical inequity. At the same time, is still rude and antisocial to point out that any individual person may have gotten in through AA.

Im South Asian, a liberal, and feel very mixed about AA, not only because it discriminates against Asian students but also because it creates the unfair dynamic where other minorities are seen as having gotten in with lower standards, which is unfair to those who are highly qualified. I think these students need a lesson in graciousness and how to cope with disappointments rather than more indoctrination in why AA is the only way.

Thank you for your nuanced explanation. I'm more anti-affirmative action than you. I do not believe the children of today should be discriminated against because of the sins of a minority's forefathers. There are millions of people in America right now whose ancestors were nowhere near America during those benighted times, and who contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. Coming to the USA is not an implicit agreement to shoulder the guilt and shame of racist white slaveholders and Amerindian murderers, or anyone else who forced Chinese laborers to build railroads, or who interned Japanese families in concentration camps.

I greatly appreciate living here in a liberal part of the country, since it's less worse than living in a conservative part of the country, but from where I'm standing, Asians are perpetually discriminated against.

- east Asian

Well you fled your own country and came to a country that owed these people. Think of it like a lean on a house you volunteer to buy. You want the benefits of owning that house, then you need to pay off the debt.

First of all, it’s lien.

Second of all, this country was built on the free labor of East Asians too.

East Asians? Free Labor in the United States? I don’t think so. If anything East Asians hat slaves too on American soil. Two of the worst slave owners in history were Chang and Eng Bunker.

PP was talking about the railroads, dummy. And let's try to be more sophisticaed about the concept of "pay" here. Technically, railroad laborers were paid, but so were child laborers. We're talking about massive exploitation of a race.
No is is disagreeing that slavery was horrific and that its effects remain to this day, but it is a big leap to then say that because Afghan interpreters were paid by the US military, that they are therefore morally indebted to African slaves in the 1700s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action does boost minority students into the top schools even if they are under qualified academically. That is the point— in the service of righting systemic and historical inequity. At the same time, is still rude and antisocial to point out that any individual person may have gotten in through AA.

Im South Asian, a liberal, and feel very mixed about AA, not only because it discriminates against Asian students but also because it creates the unfair dynamic where other minorities are seen as having gotten in with lower standards, which is unfair to those who are highly qualified. I think these students need a lesson in graciousness and how to cope with disappointments rather than more indoctrination in why AA is the only way.

Thank you for your nuanced explanation. I'm more anti-affirmative action than you. I do not believe the children of today should be discriminated against because of the sins of a minority's forefathers. There are millions of people in America right now whose ancestors were nowhere near America during those benighted times, and who contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. Coming to the USA is not an implicit agreement to shoulder the guilt and shame of racist white slaveholders and Amerindian murderers, or anyone else who forced Chinese laborers to build railroads, or who interned Japanese families in concentration camps.

I greatly appreciate living here in a liberal part of the country, since it's less worse than living in a conservative part of the country, but from where I'm standing, Asians are perpetually discriminated against.

- east Asian

Well you fled your own country and came to a country that owed these people. Think of it like a lean on a house you volunteer to buy. You want the benefits of owning that house, then you need to pay off the debt.

First of all, it’s lien.

Second of all, this country was built on the free labor of East Asians too.

East Asians? Free Labor in the United States? I don’t think so. If anything East Asians hat slaves too on American soil. Two of the worst slave owners in history were Chang and Eng Bunker.

This is so ignorant. Maybe read up on your history before you get on the keyboard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what happens when you have a CCO that purposefully withholds data and specializes in generalizations. As a parent, I would have loved to have my kids attend a teach-in about affirmative action with data, rather than assume that 1) the kids understand the real complexities of affirmative action and college admissions, and 2) not have any questions about the changing landscape of college admissions.
Of course saying that certain kids got into top schools because of race is boorish and disrespectful. But if the CCO or the 12th grade dean or even a history teacher, maybe Sue Ikenberry who teaches politics, had pre-emptively had a frank discussion about affirmative action and how it affects college admissions, this whole episode could have been avoided. For goodness sakes, Ketanji Brown Jackson was a GDS parent! The school has resources to have a compelling conversation about affirmative action and college admissions. Why not also talk about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen, and URM status as potential "hooks" in the college process? Why not discuss the very real disparities in standardized test scores across racial categories and the challenges those numbers present for college admissions? Why not discuss the problematic umbrella of "Asian" in college admissions?
I'm not surprised that the purposeful lack of transparency in college admissions at GDS is backfiring. Kids are applying to schools with so little real guidance. Visiting one of the college counselors at GDS is like visiting the oracle at Delphi--you ask questions and hope to get a response that provides some clarity.

But wouldn’t that lead to uncomfortable discussions about factors like full-pay, legacy, sports recruiting, first-gen (really, not so much. Any GDS Dreamers? No?) and URM status (plus sib preference, of course - esp this year) as hooks in the process for admission to GDS itself?

Maybe, but GDS admissions is pretty transparent about hooks for siblings and faculty kids. Moreover, GDS is about as transparent as its peer schools when it comes to admissions for their own school. GDS is behind its peers when it comes to college counseling transparency.

The discomfort occurs when the students realize they got into GDS in the first place because of hooks, that their own school and their place in it run on exactly the same process they are encountering in college admissions. But that’s not the sort of reflection GDS encourages, it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not very kind of GDS students to act with such racism. The social justice side of GDS is all fine and dandy until college decisions come out and then the true racism peaks through. I say this as a liberal, this is why we are ridiculed all the time. Liberals talk about equity etc but with something is perceived as interfering with your white privilege, it’s a problem.

The school just got done lecturing seniors about why it’s not cool to say black students are getting into college because AA and they have the audacity to hbe the following reaction:

Holder said students were talking about the meeting in the hallways after it ended. “My friends were talking about it like ‘What just happened?’ and ‘Why did we need that? It was unnecessary,’” she said.

After all these years at GDS, these students don’t know the inherit value of their rich families with elite colleges than they are born with they start off at first base yet they yell outrage when a Black student gets hit by a ball and can walk to first.

This is pathetic. I’m outraged. Why would any family want their kid at this pretentious and fake environment, yet alone pay $50K+?

I think the quotes you are including here is misleading. The article made clear that the people who organized the meeting did a poor job of explaining what incident prompted the meeting, and then started rambling about the history of affirmative action. It sounds like there was no meeting agenda provided at the start, and many students were legitimately confused about what the meeting was meant to accomplish. In the thread about the Auger Bit’s coverage of GDS teachers’ use of Chat GPT for report card comments, I shared this take from a student which I find quite thoughtful (though it doesn’t make most of the meeting organizers look good):

Freeman said at one point, Livelli said that since you don’t know what goes into people’s college processes, you can’t attribute a person’s acceptance or rejection from a college to their race. “It felt like the implication was—certainly, that’s true—but the implication was ‘You can’t act like it’s a factor at all because you don’t know,’” he said. “It seems like the outburst that caused the whole controversy was somebody acting like it was the one singular factor, which obviously doesn’t make sense—that’s wrong. But what’s equally wrong is pretending like it’s not a factor at all. It affects admission; it just felt a little disingenuous.”

Freeman added that comments from college counselors essentially told students to “discontinue” negative thoughts they had when they were faced with rejection—thoughts like “I didn’t get in, and it’s because of this.” He said they “spoke extremely euphemistically about it, which also, I didn’t like,” and added that he thought the college counselors’ comments made it seem like they didn’t regard students’ discontented feelings during the college process as valid.

“It’s understandable you would be upset that you didn’t get in. It’s not understandable that it came out that way,” he said of the comments that prompted the meeting, “but you need help working through it. And I think the decision to just be like, ‘Oh, hey, just don’t talk about it at all’ or ‘Just pretend like you’re happy when you’re not’ is definitely not the solution. To me, it feels like bottling it up like that is what’s going to lead to the hurtful outbursts, as opposed to the healthy expressions of your own disappointment.” He added that he agreed with an idea Wong shared that students should try to work through their emotions in a healthy way, by doing something like going on a run, if they feel disappointed with results they receive from colleges.

“facilitators revealed that “someone—or many people—made comments about how people of color were only getting into their ED schools or really competitive schools because of their race and affirmative action.”

The student took away “why did we need that and it was unnecessary”.

No misconstruing that. The student quoted is an elitist privileged snowflake.

The exact quote from the piece was that the student heard others in the hallway saying “why did we need that and it was unnecessary.” It’s not actually clear that she feels the same way. I can say, having had kids at GDS and other similar privates that every time the kids get pulled into a meeting to be lectured on any topic the reaction is “Why did we need that and it was unnecessary.” They are teenagers. These schools have a habit of pulling a whole class into a meeting to be lectured about the actions of some subset of the group. They are overscheduled and stressed out, and they get annoyed by having one more thing put on their plate. I’m not saying that’s right, but its not indicative that they are elite privileged snowflakes. A lot of meetings like this happen on a variety of topics. It’s exhausting.

Yeah, it sounded like something from an early, funny Dilbert comic to me. The Administration clearly needs to work on a more coherent message and a better way to deliver it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action does boost minority students into the top schools even if they are under qualified academically. That is the point— in the service of righting systemic and historical inequity. At the same time, is still rude and antisocial to point out that any individual person may have gotten in through AA.

Im South Asian, a liberal, and feel very mixed about AA, not only because it discriminates against Asian students but also because it creates the unfair dynamic where other minorities are seen as having gotten in with lower standards, which is unfair to those who are highly qualified. I think these students need a lesson in graciousness and how to cope with disappointments rather than more indoctrination in why AA is the only way.

Thank you for your nuanced explanation. I'm more anti-affirmative action than you. I do not believe the children of today should be discriminated against because of the sins of a minority's forefathers. There are millions of people in America right now whose ancestors were nowhere near America during those benighted times, and who contribute economically and culturally to this great nation. Coming to the USA is not an implicit agreement to shoulder the guilt and shame of racist white slaveholders and Amerindian murderers, or anyone else who forced Chinese laborers to build railroads, or who interned Japanese families in concentration camps.

I greatly appreciate living here in a liberal part of the country, since it's less worse than living in a conservative part of the country, but from where I'm standing, Asians are perpetually discriminated against.

- east Asian

Well you fled your own country and came to a country that owed these people. Think of it like a lean on a house you volunteer to buy. You want the benefits of owning that house, then you need to pay off the debt.

First of all, it’s lien.

Second of all, this country was built on the free labor of East Asians too.

East Asians? Free Labor in the United States? I don’t think so. If anything East Asians hat slaves too on American soil. Two of the worst slave owners in history were Chang and Eng Bunker.

PP was talking about the railroads, dummy. And let's try to be more sophisticaed about the concept of "pay" here. Technically, railroad laborers were paid, but so were child laborers. We're talking about massive exploitation of a race.
No is is disagreeing that slavery was horrific and that its effects remain to this day, but it is a big leap to then say that because Afghan interpreters were paid by the US military, that they are therefore morally indebted to African slaves in the 1700s.

They are indebted, this country is and if they want to be citizens, they should do their part. And not only were Asians paid to work on the railroad, they just came to expand the railroad west. The railroads were already built with unpaid labor provided by black slaves.

[Anonymous]

This idea of competing oppression is really divisive and I would like to ask you to stop.