s*********5
发帖数: 5637 | 1 今天听到一档节目讲到许多著名的犹太艺人出道前都把自己的名字改了，这样有偏见的
人就不知道他们是犹太人。其中提到的名人有Woody Allen，Bob Dylan, Mel Brooks，
George Gershwin等等。难道我们亚裔要争取公平上高校的机会也得更名改姓吗？
艺名。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。原名
Joey Adams ............................. Joseph Abramowitz
Eddie Albert ............................ Eddie Heimberger
Woody Allen............................. Allen Konigsberg
Lauren Bacall .......................... Joan Perske
Jack Benny ............................. Benny Kubelsky
Milton Berle ........................... Milton Berlinger
Ernest Borgnine ......................... Effron Borgnine
George Burns ........................... Nathan Birnbaum
Joan Blondell........................... Rosebud Blustein
Joyce Brothers .......................... Joyce Bauer
Mel Brooks ............................. Melvin Kaminsky
Joey Bishop ............................ Joey Gottlieb
Charles Bronson ........................ Charles Buchinsky
Rona Barrett ............................ Rona Burnstein
Cyd Chrisse ............................. Tula Finklea
Tony Curtis ............................ Bernie Schwartz
(daughter is Jamie Lee Curtis)
Joan Crawford .......................... Lucille Le Sueur
Dyan Cannon ............................ Samile Friesen
Kirk Douglas ........................... Isadore Demsky
(son is Michael Douglas)
Bob Dylan ............................... Robert Zimmerman
Rodney Dangerfield ...................... Jacob Cohen
Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. ................. Douglas Ullman
Joel Grey .............................. Joel Katz
(father of Jennifer Grey)
Elliott Gould ........................... Elliott Goldstein
Zsa Zsa Gabor ........................... Sara Gabor
John Garfield .......................... Jules Garfinkle
Judy Garland ........................... Frances Gumm
Paulette Goddard ....................... Paulette Levy
Eydie Gorme............................. Edith Gormezano
Cary Grant ............................. Larry Leach
Lorne Green ............................. Chaim Leibowiz
Judy Holliday .......................... Judith Tuvin
Leslie Howard .......................... Leslie Stainer
Buddy Hackett .......................... Leonard Hacker
Jill St. John .......................... Jill Oppenheim
Danny Kaye.............................. David Kominsky
Alan King .............................. Irwin Kniberg
Larry King............................... Larry Zeiger
Tina Louise............................. Tina Blacker
Ann Landers.............................. Esther Friedman
(Abigail Van Buren is her sister.)
Dorothy Lamour ......................... Dorothy Kaumeyer
Miehael Landon ......................... Mike Orowitz
Steve Lawrence ......................... Sidney Leibowitz
Hal Linden.............................. Hal Lip****z
Jerry Lewis ............................ Joseph Levitch
Karl Maiden .............................Maiden Sekulovitch
Ethel Merman ........................... Ethel Zimmerman
Jan Murray ............................. Murray Janofsky
Walter Matthau ......................... Walter Matasschanskayasky
Lilly Palmer ........................... Maria Peiser
Jan Pierce.............................. Pincus Perelmuth
Roberta Peters...........................Roberta Peterman
Eleanor Parker.......................... Ellen Friedlob
Joan Rlvers .............................Joan Molinsky
Tony Randall ........................... Sidney Rosenberg
Edward G. Robinson ..................... Emanuel Goldenberg
Dinah Shore ............................ Fanny Rose
Shelly Winters ......................... Shirley Schrift
Gene Wilder............................. Jerome Silberman
现在许多犹太人觉得亚裔现在在美国被反向歧视的待遇就和他们百年前的遭遇差不多。
知名的犹太民权组织Brandeis Center For Human Rights的主席Kenneth Marcus说“百
年前，藤校限制犹太学生入学不对，现在限制亚裔学生入学也不对。”所以他们中心愿
意和80-20一起在这次因为高校录取族裔考量的官司里递送可能会影响最高法院裁决的
‘法律之友’文书。准备这篇文书的律师也是有着丰富宪法/民权的犹太律师。在这篇
文书里，律师把犹太考生被高校限制入学的历史和亚裔现在面临的情况娓娓道来。有兴
趣的朋友可以去看看。
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/pdf/amicus-brief.pdf
------------
这里有篇分析文章提到亚裔就像新的犹太人一样：
Subject: Weekly Standard- The New Jews They're Asian Americans. Ethan
Epstein June 11, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 37
______________________________________
The New Jews， They're Asian Americans.
Ethan Epstein
June 11, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 37
Like many colleges and universities, Princeton professes its devotion to “
institutional equity and diversity.” The university’s website claims that
the school “actively seek[s] students, faculty, and staff of exceptional
ability and promise who . . . will bring a
diversity of viewpoints and cultures,” before explaining that “examples of
personal characteristics that confer diversity of viewpoint and culture
include but are not limited to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
race, ethnicity, national origin,” etc.
The U.S. Department of Education may beg to differ. Since 2008, according to
a spokesman, its Office for Civil Rights has been investigating whether the
school “discriminates against Asians, on the basis of race or national
origin, in its admissions process”—that is, whether students of Asian
descent are being penalized for their background when applying to the school
. Princeton, for its part, said through a spokesman, “We treat each
application individually and we don’t discriminate on the basis of race or
national origin. . . . We evaluate applications in
a holistic manner, and no particular factor in the admission process is
assigned a fixed weight. There is no formula for weighing the various
aspects of the application.” One could be forgiven for wondering how the
claim that the school “does not discriminate on the basis of race or
national origin” does not contradict its mission to “actively seek
students” who “bring a diversity of viewpoints and cultures,” though.
After all, doesn’t trying to foster a diverse student body necessitate some
form of race-based decision making?
This isn’t to single out the Tigers. Indeed, Princeton is far from alone in
being accused of anti-Asian bias in admissions. In August of last year, an
Indian-American student filed a complaint with the Department of Education
against Harvard alleging anti-Asian discrimination in its admissions
department. (The student ultimately withdrew the complaint in February 2012.
) Michele Hernández, author of A Is for Admissions and former admissions
staffer at Dartmouth, recently said that “after 10 years of [counseling]
and 4 years in Dartmouth admissions, I don’t think it’s intentional, but I
think there is discrimination. If you look at the numbers, you can
basically see that [if you are applying to many selective colleges] you have
to have higher-than-average scores if you are an Asian.”
Asian Americans routinely outperform all other groups, including Caucasians,
in academic achievement, a pattern that has been observed since at least
the mid-1980s. By eighth grade, “the percentage of Asian American students
scoring in the upper echelons on math exams was 17 points higher than the
percentage of white students,” reports the Washington Post. When it’s time
to apply for college, the gap continues: In 2010, the last year for which
data were available, the average SAT score for Asian Americans was 1636,
versus 1580 for Caucasian students, 1369 for Mexicans and Mexican Americans,
and 1277 for African Americans.
But as Asian Americans have risen through the academic ranks, some claim
that they’ve become the “new Jews”—a group considered to be “
overrepresented” in elite academia.
Data bear this out. A Center for Equal Opportunity study, cited on the
Manhattan Institute’s website in the wake of the Harvard complaint, found
that Asian applicants to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT
score that was “50 points higher than the median score of white students
who were accepted, 140 points higher than that of Hispanics and 240 points
higher than that of blacks.” The center also found that “among applicants
with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university
admitted 10 percent of Asian Americans, 14 percent of whites, 88 percent of
Hispanics and 92 percent of blacks.” As further evidence, consider that “
after the state of California abolished racial preferences, the percentage
of Asian Americans accepted at Berkeley increased from 34.6 percent in 1997,
the last year of legal affirmative action, to 42 percent entering in fall
2006,” clear evidence that the group had been unfairly penalized under the
previous regime.
Ironically enough, one of the most revealing studies of this phenomenon was
conducted by one of Princeton’s own. In 2009, Thomas Espenshade, a
Princeton professor of sociology, co-authored a report that revealed
students of Asian descent did indeed face discrimination at colleges and
universities beyond the Ivy League. According to Espenshade’s analysis, an
Asian student needs to score 140 points higher than whites on the math and
reading portions of the SAT, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450
points higher than blacks to have the same chances of admission at the
nation’s top schools. “[A]ll other things equal,” Espenshade told Inside
Higher Ed, “Asian-American students are at a disadvantage relative to white
students, and at an even bigger disadvantage relative to black and Latino
students.”
To supporters of affirmative action, the practice has two major benefits—
one positive and one punitive. For one, they say that it’s a necessary
corrective to grave historical injustices. Two—and this they don’t often
say out loud—affirmative action punishes those who are perceived to have
benefited from (or even personally perpetrated) the politics of racial
supremacy.
But in both cases—even if one accepts those justifications—discriminating
against Asians is indefensible. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that
Asian Americans have endured more discrimination than American Hispanics,
who benefit from affirmative action as it is currently executed. And Asian
Americans can hardly be accused of oppressing other racial groups en masse.
As S. B. Woo, former lieutenant governor of Delaware and current
director of the Asian-American advocacy organization the 80-20 Initiative,
says, “there is no historical rationale that justifies forcing Asian
Americans to bear the burden of preference, more than other Americans.”
Indeed, given the historical injustices suffered by Americans of Asian
descent—Japanese internment, the Chinese Exclusion Act—in an honest
affirmative action regime, they would stand to benefit.
The times may be a changin’, though. This fall, the Supreme Court will hear
a case brought by a white student who says she was denied admission to the
University of Texas on account of her Caucasian background. Consequently,
racial preferences in college admissions could be banned altogether—a real
possibility, given the Court’s relatively conservative bent.
But until then, Asian applicants may continue to have to leap a higher bar
than others. Unsurprisingly, the Associated Press reported late last year
that increasing numbers of Asian applicants are neglecting to identify
themselves as such—students of mixed descent, for example, fail to mention
their Asian heritage at all, checking the box for “Caucasian” and leaving
“Asian” blank.
Maybe they should check “Native American” instead.
Ethan Epstein is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard | n******e
发帖数: 708 | 2 lol 长得像改名才有用。。
btw 从这些犹太姓才发现很多没改名的牛人原来是犹太人
【在 s*********5 的大作中提到】
: 今天听到一档节目讲到许多著名的犹太艺人出道前都把自己的名字改了，这样有偏见的
: 人就不知道他们是犹太人。其中提到的名人有Woody Allen，Bob Dylan, Mel Brooks，
: George Gershwin等等。难道我们亚裔要争取公平上高校的机会也得更名改姓吗？
: 艺名。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。原名
: Joey Adams ............................. Joseph Abramowitz
: Eddie Albert ............................ Eddie Heimberger
: Woody Allen............................. Allen Konigsberg
: Lauren Bacall .......................... Joan Perske
: Jack Benny ............................. Benny Kubelsky
: Milton Berle ........................... Milton Berlinger
| s*********5
发帖数: 5637 | 3 ，this may be a problem.
建议姓李的改为Lee，姓王，黄的改为Juan（看起来像西裔可能优势更大）。。。 Just
joking。
【在 n******e 的大作中提到】
: lol 长得像改名才有用。。
: btw 从这些犹太姓才发现很多没改名的牛人原来是犹太人
| r******l
发帖数: 10760 | 4 长得不像改啥也没用啊。杰克逊那么大牌，而且连皮都漂白了，不还是照样被歧视？ |
|
