Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

"Outed" as what? What is the "agenda"? Why are you trying to silence constructive discussion of important topic?

Take it up with the moderator. He obviously has seen your kind of so-called constructive blame game discussion cross the line on other occasions.

It's one thing to challenge a system you may deem unfair. It's another to wrongfully blame and denigrate an entire race of people(s) for your woes without exception while promulgating obsessively your own superiority. Nobody is walking water, not you and not anybody else.

You were rightfully called out, and the moderator responded appropriately.

NP. The moderator wrote that the poster in question's "own posts are frequently right up against the line of acceptability, but responses to them cause the discussion to cross over". That means it is responses from those like you which cross the line of acceptability, not the poster you are trying to silence.

You might want to reread that.

NP. This poster was right. Jeff thought that the poster in question was close but responses like yours are clearly over the line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

"Outed" as what? What is the "agenda"? Why are you trying to silence constructive discussion of important topic?

Take it up with the moderator. He obviously has seen your kind of so-called constructive blame game discussion cross the line on other occasions.

It's one thing to challenge a system you may deem unfair. It's another to wrongfully blame and denigrate an entire race of people(s) for your woes without exception while promulgating obsessively your own superiority. Nobody is walking water, not you and not anybody else.

You were rightfully called out, and the moderator responded appropriately.

NP. The moderator wrote that the poster in question's "own posts are frequently right up against the line of acceptability, but responses to them cause the discussion to cross over". That means it is responses from those like you which cross the line of acceptability, not the poster you are trying to silence.

You might want to reread that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

"Outed" as what? What is the "agenda"? Why are you trying to silence constructive discussion of important topic?

Take it up with the moderator. He obviously has seen your kind of so-called constructive blame game discussion cross the line on other occasions.

It's one thing to challenge a system you may deem unfair. It's another to wrongfully blame and denigrate an entire race of people(s) for your woes without exception while promulgating obsessively your own superiority. Nobody is walking water, not you and not anybody else.

You were rightfully called out, and the moderator responded appropriately.

NP. The moderator wrote that the poster in question's "own posts are frequently right up against the line of acceptability, but responses to them cause the discussion to cross over". That means it is responses from those like you which cross the line of acceptability, not the poster you are trying to silence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

"Outed" as what? What is the "agenda"? Why are you trying to silence constructive discussion of important topic?

Take it up with the moderator. He obviously has seen your kind of so-called constructive blame game discussion cross the line on other occasions.

It's one thing to challenge a system you may deem unfair. It's another to wrongfully blame and denigrate an entire race of people(s) for your woes without exception while promulgating obsessively your own superiority. Nobody is walking water, not you and not anybody else.

You were rightfully called out, and the moderator responded appropriately.

I defended against Asians being denigrated but I have not denigrated an entire race of people. I pointed out Asian Americans are discriminated against in college admissions on the basis of race and that they shouldn't be targeted with stereotypes such as robots, only have high scores etc. Why aren't you concerned about Asian Americans being denigrated?

And you apparently have no concern or problem with African Americans being stereotyped as underperformers, subpar scorers, and chomping at the bit to take an Ivy seat though incapable of meeting the high academic standards as comments of such are replete in this thread.

And apparently you have no concern about expressing stereotypically about the Jews who experienced academic bias and segregation but now are complicit in preventing Asians from obtaining Ivy seats as stated several times in the thread.

So, maybe you should be aware about your vitriol and maybe others might be more open minded to your concerns.

Previously posted on the MIT thread....

This is so ridiculous to have categories of asian Americans, black Americans, Spanish America's. I would guess most the people on this board are likely at least second generation. So likely everyone had upbringings more closely related to economic class vs racial distinctions. If people are going to make generalizations based on ethnic heritage, e.g. Tiger moms, less intelligent african americans, etc...then be amusing and generalize about Irish Americans, British America, French Americans....and where they fall on the intelligence ladder.
I really don't understand the college definition of diversity by skin color/ethnic origin. They would probably get more diversity of thought and culture by segmenting based on income band. By the way, I am a minority and back in the day, as a first generation I probably could have used government anti-discrimination protection although my race is not covered. But now, my DCs are raised per OUR American culture and my multi-colored friends and I have similar parenting styles. I would argue that the world is changng rapidly in the information era and kids, that have been privileged to be raised in middle class+ homes, should compete on a level playing field in order to be better globally prepared. Personally, the only protected category that makes sense to me is for the poorest income level as those kids truly have to overcome incredible challenges. I would toss the legacy category away too as its somewhat superfluous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

"Outed" as what? What is the "agenda"? Why are you trying to silence constructive discussion of important topic?

Take it up with the moderator. He obviously has seen your kind of so-called constructive blame game discussion cross the line on other occasions.

It's one thing to challenge a system you may deem unfair. It's another to wrongfully blame and denigrate an entire race of people(s) for your woes without exception while promulgating obsessively your own superiority. Nobody is walking water, not you and not anybody else.

You were rightfully called out, and the moderator responded appropriately.

I defended against Asians being denigrated but I have not denigrated an entire race of people. I pointed out Asian Americans are discriminated against in college admissions on the basis of race and that they shouldn't be targeted with stereotypes such as robots, only have high scores etc. Why aren't you concerned about Asian Americans being denigrated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

"Outed" as what? What is the "agenda"? Why are you trying to silence constructive discussion of important topic?

Take it up with the moderator. He obviously has seen your kind of so-called constructive blame game discussion cross the line on other occasions.

It's one thing to challenge a system you may deem unfair. It's another to wrongfully blame and denigrate an entire race of people(s) for your woes without exception while promulgating obsessively your own superiority. Nobody is walking water, not you and not anybody else.

You were rightfully called out, and the moderator responded appropriately.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

"Outed" as what? What is the "agenda"? Why are you trying to silence constructive discussion of important topic?

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/473489.page

As mentioned in the Ivy Affirmative Action thread, the poster has been outed and the agenda is obvious.

This story will be an interesting one to follow. For 50 some years now colleges, particularly in the east have grappled with the issue of how to turn out a more fair and balanced racially-mixed America through higher education.

While African Americans and Hispanics have made great strides in some areas of our society over this period, e.g. acceptance of intermarriages, media representation, corporate positions, etc., the jury is still out as to results in other areas (inner city crime, illegitimacy, failing schools, the poverty cycle, etc.). At the risk of being accused of stereotyping, Asian Americans tend to be highly intelligent and motivated. To deny them entry into college because they may be overqualified is indeed something to think about.

The Jews were denied at Harvard so long ago because the WASPS that ran the place believed they knew what the result would be if admissions were based strictly on academic achievement. This of course was later viewed as wrong and the repugnant policy eliminated. I suppose it is good that the courts periodically revisit this issue, if for no other reason to remind the would-be social engineers and PC crowd that they do not always have the last word, their colossal egos notwithstanding.

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I also think the responses here are kind of racist. Rather than thinking about what may be a true discrimination based on race, so many posts are about the problems with high achieving Asians. I am white btw. I get that there are a lot of Asian Americans who fit the generalization of hyper competitive, grade oriented students just looking to get into Harvard. There are a lot of whites who fit that generalization too. If you put a white face on all of the Asian Americans who are applying to Harvard and told me their resume, I'd be saying a lot of them should be a shoo-in for Harvard too. I think that the minute you say Asian, we have a tendency to start assigning them into these negative stereotypes, and that is racist.

Can posters respond to this: do you think it is wrong to have quotas based STRICTLY on race? (not socioeconomic status or anything to do with traits truly valuable to the candidate's application)

This is what Asian Americans are trying to say. If they were white, AA or Hispanic, they would have easier time gaining admission to top schools but they have much tougher time strictly because of race. In addition, the issue gets derailed with the typical attack on Asians as only good for high scores, high GPA, prep like crazy stereotypes instead of recognizing hard work in trying to overcome the ever increasing and changing admission criteria only for the Asians.

PP here. I also think the responses here are kind of racist. Rather than thinking about what may be a true discrimination based on race, so many posts are about the problems with high achieving Asians. I am white btw. I get that there are a lot of Asian Americans who fit the generalization of hyper competitive, grade oriented students just looking to get into Harvard. There are a lot of whites who fit that generalization too. If you put a white face on all of the Asian Americans who are applying to Harvard and told me their resume, I'd be saying a lot of them should be a shoo-in for Harvard too. I think that the minute you say Asian, we have a tendency to start assigning them into these negative stereotypes, and that is racist.

Can posters respond to this: do you think it is wrong to have quotas based STRICTLY on race? (not socioeconomic status or anything to do with traits truly valuable to the candidate's application)

I think the problem with Asians (in applications) is that they are identifiable. Colleges want a diversity of talents on the campus, and it's quite possible that all of those aspects of diversity could be accomplished within their Asian applicants alone. But then the university would look different. And the same is true for African Americans and (some) Latinos. I think as you begin to be talking about third generation Americans of Asian ancestry, it does strike one as a little racist.

Anonymous wrote:The fallacy of these concerns is that admission to Ivy League schools and the like should be based on nothing but scores and GPA. What is wrong with the schools considering other factors, even if it means the absolute highest scoring kids are not always admitted. There are plenty of good schools in this country, and it seems a real first world gripe to complain that one or -- one's kid -- is "stuck" going to, say BU or Case Western, nothwithstanding very high grades and scores. I sometimes wonder if part of the issue is that some of the super-competitive Asians do not have are very status conscious and lack the perspective to appreciate the plethora of other alternatives that are as, or almost, as good, as the
Ivies. This country has much bigger problems than whether certain Asian groups might "deserve" -- based on pure metrics -- to constitute a slightly higher percentage of the most elite schools than they already do. These complaints seem to come from a pretty warped set of entitlement.

It would be tough going to BU and being surrounded by superior schools.

Anonymous wrote:One of the nation’s most prestigious universities really have a racially biased admissions process

Yes, yes, and yes.
Racial quotas are put in place to help people from the lower achieving end. This means SOMEBODY will get the bad end of the stick. Since Asians do so well and make up large part of universities, whereas blacks underperform, racial quotas mean some Asians will have to be cut off in order to make room for the black students.

The same thing happens with white students, the problem with the white students is that the white politicians themselves are for it.

Your repetitive racist bullshit against blacks and Jews is painfully wearing itself out.