a***8
发帖数: 2433 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: acc28 (天下武功，唯快不破!), 信区: Military
标 题: zz. 紧急动员：决战最高法院， 请投庄严一票
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Mar 2 15:43:32 2012, 美东)
http://admin.80-20nj.info/cgi/80/e?l=8/11e/f&w=no
紧急动员：决战最高法院， 请投庄严一票
捍卫你孩子公平竞争入学名校的机会
历史性的时刻已经到来了：2/21/2012， 美国最高法院决定审理用"族裔" 的理由来提
高亚裔和白人高校入学门槛的做法是否违宪。您--关爱
孩子未来的父母--现在就可以花一分钟时间来帮助孩子增大孩子上 他们理想大学的机
会。请您立即投票赞成（FOR） 80-20全
美亚裔教育基金会的民调书， 清楚明白地表明亚裔在这件案子上的立场。
http://admin.80-20nj.info/cgi/ 80/e?l=8/11e/f&w=no
资料显示， 亚裔在美国要比其他族裔成绩优秀许多才能上同样的学校。 要上同样的名
校，亚裔SAT要考1550分，白人1410分，
而非裔只需要1100分*（英文和数学满分是1600）。 亚裔入学这么高的门槛使得许多亚
裔的大学申请者非常害怕，
有些干脆拒绝列出他们是亚裔--其实学校一看名字还是能知道哪些孩 子是亚裔。。。
下面几周内，我们需要征集到至少五万个签名，让结果写入Amic us Curiae ("法庭之
友"的文书)作为证据资料递交最高法院。
我们要表明亚裔赞同以考生的综合素质（而不是族裔） 作为美国高校的招生标准。 综
合素质包括申请学生现在的学术成绩和未来可能的成功潜力，
例如申请人是否能在不利的生活环境中仍能不懈努力等(i.e. Overcome adversity
under socio-economic
constraint). 我们相信这样的定位能给所有的考生提 供一个公平竞争的机会， 也能
给学校足够的弹性来制定他们的教育的目标。
之所以要五万个签名来支持这项活动是因为现在最高法院不知道亚裔 作为少数族裔在
这个案例上是支持还是反对高校取消'族裔'
作为录取标准的。通过我们初步的调查， 绝大多数的亚裔是支持取消'族裔'这个录取
指标的。
但是我们需要确实的数据来证明亚裔的立场，所以80-20全美亚 裔教育基金会设计了这
个民调书。
如果您愿意让你孩子抬头做人， 在申请书上大大方方承认自己是亚裔， 而不惧怕会受
歧视而上不了理想的学校的话，
请现在就到下面的网站来签名赞成80-20的民调书， 并请您的其他的亚裔朋友都来签名
。父母请各签一个名， 有自由意志的学龄孩子也可以签名！（
必须是绿卡或公民才可以投票，谢谢合作。）
时间紧迫，谢谢您支持签名和帮助转发！
(*Source: "No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite
College Admission and Campus Life" by Thomas Espenshade (Princeton
University Press, 2009)
A historical moment has arrived. On February 21, 2012, the Supreme
Court decided to review a pending lawsuit that challenges the
prevalence use of strong racial preferences in college admission.
Please take this survey to project your voice to the Supreme Court.
http://admin.80-20nj. info/cgi/80/e?l=8/11e/f&w=no
Your children's future is literally in your hands!
Currently, Asian Americans are being held at a much higher college
admission standard. To receive equal consideration for the top
colleges, out of a 1600 SAT maximum (verbal & math)
1550 for Asians = 1410 for Whites = 1100 for Blacks.
The strong racial preferences instilled such a fear among Asian
American applicants that many refuse to state their ethnicities in
college applications. (Well, most of our LAST NAMES are a dead
giveaway!) If you want your children to face such a harsh reality,
then do nothing. Otherwise please take ONE minute to cast your vote.
We aim to gather 50,000 signatures and submit this national survey
results to the Supreme Court. We will submit an Amicus Curiae
("friend of the court" brief) advocating a race-neutral, merit-based
college admission policy; with broadly defined merit to include
current scholastic achievement and evaluated future potential of an
applicant. This nuanced position would provide fair and equitable
opportunity to all applicants; while still provide the schools broad
discretion in defining education objectives.
Please fire up all your Asian American friends and families to vote.
The clock is ticking; the deadline to submit a legal briefing is less
than two months away. Every single vote counts. Yes, parents should
sign as two separate individuals, school children counts too if they
understand the concept and have an opinion.
"YOU must be the change you wish to see in the world" -- Mahatma Gandhi
What is at stake?
For many Asian American parents, there is no larger issue at stake.
We spend tens (even hundreds) of thousands of dollars, devote most
evenings and weekends over 18 years, scarifying and enduring all
hardships in order to give our children the best college preparation,
only to find out that we are a "wrong minority" whose qualifications
are summarily discounted, by as much as 450 points out of 1600 SAT
total, in order to make room for the others. The others have decided
long ago, without our consent and without our knowledge, that such
reverse discrimination is "GOOD" for our kids and call it a
"celebration of diversity". We beg to disagree: The very American
ideal of Equal Opportunity, afforded to people of all races and
ethnicities by the "Equal Protection Clause" in 14th Amendment of the
US constitution, must prevail.
"Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional'
to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it "racial
diversity'". -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Why the survey?
The Supreme Court takes up contentious issues and set legal precedents
for the lower courts. The rulings are based on the Justices' lifelong
personal experiences, available factual data, and their interpretation
of the US constitution.
There have been insidious attempts to confuse the college admissions
issue by labeling racial preferences as a struggle between the "white"
and the "minorities". It is NOT, Asian Americans have been used as a
sacrificial lamb to paper over a deep-rooted social problem: large and
persistent achievement gaps among racial groups. The Supreme Court
might as well be confused, considering FOUR Asian American
organizations have already filed Amicus Curiae saying Asian Americans
all love racial preferences in college admissions. This survey will
set the record straight: NO, the vast majority of Asian Americans DO
NOT support racial preferences. Our internal opinion poll shows Asian
Americans prefer a race-neutral and merit-based policy by a 10:1
margin. This national survey will produce NEW factual data for the
Supreme Court to consider, blocking a potent argument by our
opponents. Broad Asian American participation is critical.
"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the
content of their character." -- Dr. Martin Luther King
Why Amicus brief?
Amicus Curiae ("friend of the court" brief) is a legal process to
influence the Court decision by someone who is not a party to the
lawsuit but has a vested interest in the outcome. This third party
volunteers to offer pertinent information to assist the Court in
decision making. There is a two-month window during which Amicus can
be filed, starting from the date the Court takes a case. The clock
starts ticking on February 21, 2012.
Why now?
Only 5% of the US population is Asian Americans. Normally fractious
and indifferent, we are mostly invisible. This Supreme Court case is
closely contested, which enables us to tip the balance through a
cohesive action. It is equivalent to a minority exerting a
disproportionally influence by throwing a block vote in a tight
election.
The opportunity for the Supreme Court to review college racial
preferences is very rare. It only happened twice before: In 1978
Bakker and 2003 Grutter, the decisions were extremely tight, with 5:4
votes in favor of the schools. The current Court is more hostile to
racial preferences. We can tip the balance by influencing the opinion
of just ONE Justice through unity and hard work.
A Supreme Court ruling can have a multi-decade influence across the
country. If we do not act NOW, it would be too late for all our
children who are already born today.
Can we win?
We have a > 50% chance to win if we act in unity and with determination.
There are eight Justices (The ninth, Justice Kagan has recused
herself): Four (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia) are reliable opponent
to racial preferences, and Three (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor) are
reliable supporter of racial preferences, this leaves Justice Kennedy
the key swing vote.
Three likely scenarios:
1) Kennedy rules in favor of racial preferences: In a 4:4 tie,
the Fifth Circuit court ruling stands, the status quo is maintained
for the next two decades. We LOSE BIG.
2) Kennedy strictly limits the use of racial preferences: In a
5:3 ruling, the schools would be under "strict scrutiny" to justify
any use of racial preferences. We have a significant win.
3) Kennedy upholds the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection Clause":
In a 5:3 ruling, all racial preferences are banned. We WIN BIG.
Don't be tricked
Be aware of the trick questions from racial preferences supporters:
"Are you against affirmative action?" (Implying you are not progressive)
"Affirmative Action (AA)" is a toxic and much abused phrase. It means
totally different things to different people that it is completely
meaningless to answer yes or no without explicit definition. Check out
the official Department of Labor definition: "take affirmative action
to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for
employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, disability". The original meaning of AA is "stop past racial
discrimination now or face penalty." In common practice, however, AA
has been stretched beyond imagination and morphed into "apply reverse
discrimination to others so that the some preferred minorities can be
equally represented despite of lesser qualifications." In addition, AA
means "racial" to some, "socioeconomic" to the others. Please answer
the question using words other than AA. Otherwise your opponent would
take your yes/no, switch the meaning, and insist you said so.
"What? You don't support diversity?" (Implying you are narrow minded)
Diversity is more than skin deep: We support a diversity of ideas and
socioeconomic backgrounds, which can be achieved through a sharp focus
on individual character strengths without resorting to race and
ethnicity. For example, the schools could use a combination of
socioeconomic conditions and performance of a student within such
constraint to identify high-potential individuals. If a
socioeconomically disadvantaged group produces a disproportionally
large percentage of students in this category, and therefore
disproportionally benefits from such a preference, so be it. The key
departure from the current practice is that individual efforts are
needed to gain admission, rather than relying on a caricature of
group characteristics, such as race and ethnicity. After all, a poor
African American kid and a poor Asian American kid from equally
socioeconomically disadvantaged family backgrounds should compete
based on their personal drives to succeed despite of the adverse
conditions. Racial preferences disproportionally benefit suburban
wealth minorities who happen to have the "right" skin color, at the
expense of their poor brethren and all others.
"What? You don't support equal opportunity for under-represented minority?"
We support Equal Opportunity, we oppose Equal Representation. Equal
opportunity is to provide opportunity consistent with one's
qualifications and let him to rise or fall based on performance. It
doesn't imply equal outcome. Equal representation, on the other hand,
is to make the outcome proportional to the population regardless of
one's qualifications. It insists on equal outcome, which is Communism
in disguise. Confusing the two dichotomous concepts would drag us
into gratuitous battles against our community interest.
Equal Representation is also known as "Racial Balancing". After being
consistently ruled as unconstitutional, its supporters now call it
"Racial Diversity". After all, who does not love diversity?
"Let's show solidarity with other minorities in our struggle with the
white majority."
Viewing everything through the 1960s prism of black vs. white struggle
is not only antiquated but downright dangerous. The real issue is
some people used Asian Americans as a pawn in a proxy battle to
achieve racial balancing. The interests of four million Asian
American children were sacrificed for someone else's gain, all without
our knowledge or consent. They have the right to sacrifice their own
children's futures if they truly believe in their causes, but they
have NO right to do this to YOUR children unless YOU give the consent.
This is the reason we launch this survey project to hear YOUR voice.
Please cast your solemn vote.
"Do you NOT have any compassion toward under-privileged people?"
Quite contrary, we do. True compassion is to attack the root cause of
the problem. Do you help a cancer patient by putting on a Band-Aid,
and then wear it like an honor badge proclaiming "I helped him"? You
are killing him by giving false hope while delaying real treatment.
The patient needs chemotherapy, which is painful, lengthy but
effective. The root-causes of the low academic achievement in some
ethnic groups are the lack of parent involvements, low community
expectation, and poor quality of the K-12 education. Achieving success
requires hard work, persistency and sacrifice. It is already too late
by the time a student gets out of the high school. Giving out college
admissions on a platter only feeds entitlement. Please read the
following reports to appreciate how racial preferences actually hurts
the intended beneficiaries, with "academic mismatch" leading to
self-segregation and less classroom diversity [1], undermining
minority enrollment in science and engineering [2], reducing the
graduation rate [3], and damaging the minority pipeline in academia
[4].
[1] "The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly
Selective Institutions", R. Elliott et. al.37 Research in Higher
Education 681 (1996)
[2] "Encouraging Minority Students to Pursue Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math Careers", US Commission on Civil Rights, Briefing
Report, Oct 2010.
[3] "Are Black/White Disparities in Graduation and Passing the Bar
Getting Worse, or Better?" by R. Sander. http://www.elsblog.
org/the_empirical_legal_studi/ 2006/09/ sander_2_black_.html
[4] "The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students"
(Harvard University Press 2003)
"Race is just 'one of the many factors', a 'tie breaker', a 'nudge factor'."
What a patent lie! Study after study show racial preferences as a
dominant factor in college admissions. If all other credentials are
equal, Asian-Americans need to score 140 points more than whites, 270
points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points above African-Americans
out of a maximum 1600 on the math and reading SAT to have the same
chance of admission to a top private college. Please show any data
to the contrary before making the "tie breaker" argument again.
"Asian Americans lack personal appeal, which offset their academic
performance."
We challenge the colleges to open up their admission files for social
study before propagating racial stereotype. Asian stereotyping like
this helped keep Jeremy Lin on the bench until his coach ran out of
other "warm bodies" to play. It is even sadder that some Asian
Americans also buy into such crap.
Do you see the sinister cycle? Raise the bar on Asian Americans =>
Force us Asian Americans to work harder to achieve more => Increase
the difference between the ethnic groups => You folks must be academic
robots => Robots are weird, lacks personal appeal => Justify the
decision to raise the bar even higher to make room for the others.
"We are a 'model minority', need to work harder, achieve more for the
same recognition."
Just say NO! We want equal opportunity based on our qualifications,
as enshrined in the "Equal Protect Clause" of the 14th Amendment.
The "model minority" stereotype has inflicted considerable damages to
the Asian American community by justifying the exclusion of assistance
programs to the needy and discounting the achievements of all
individuals. College admission is just one such example.
"I had a 3.7 undergraduate GPA. As an Asian I didn't qualify for loans
or grants as I was not an 'under-rep' minority so worked 3 jobs to get
through school. One of them was to tutor 'under-rep' minorities that
usually had GPA in the 1's and 2's and had an overall graduation rate
of 30%. Just lowering the bar to absolute rock bottom to meet
diversity quotas is absolutely, positively absurd. They never
graduate...because most weren't qualified to go. Fix the problem in
K-12 because it's pointless by college." --BrandonH, St. Louis, upon
reading "Some Asian's College Strategy: Don't Check 'Asian'"
"You are stirring up racial tension by talking about such a sensitive topic."
Just the opposite, we ask the society to pay lesser attention to race
and more to individual qualifications. American may have been the only
developed nation to even allow the race question to be asked in
college applications. Canada, Austrian, and the European nations DO
NOT ask this question. Why are we so fixated in insisting to identify
every ingredient in the melting pot, if we do not intent to use such
data for the purpose of differential treatment?
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
discriminating on the basis of race." -- Chief Justice John Roberts
"Sky will fall on African Americans and Latinos if the Supreme Court
bans racial preferences"
Why would racial preferences proponents refuse to look at the
real-life data? 40% of the US population lives in states in which
public universities are not using preferences. Has the sky fallen in
these states? The best example is California. After Proposition 209
was passed in 1996 banning racial preferences, there was an initial
drop in Blacks and Latinos enrollment. The enrollment returned to the
highest pre-1996 level in 2002, increased another 40% by 2007,
together with increased socioeconomic diversification and improved
classroom integration. Through a focus on improved K-12 education,
the number of academically strong minority students has also increased
remarkably. This is exactly the right approach: Forcing everyone into
a race to the top, rather than pulling everyone down to the bottom.
The proponents of racial preferences only want to advertise what
happened immediately after Prop 209, and refuse to acknowledge what
happened afterward. | d********1
发帖数: 3828 | 2 韩粉们要是去投票我就不质疑韩寒了。
【在 a***8 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
: 发信人: acc28 (天下武功，唯快不破!), 信区: Military
: 标 题: zz. 紧急动员：决战最高法院， 请投庄严一票
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Mar 2 15:43:32 2012, 美东)
: http://admin.80-20nj.info/cgi/80/e?l=8/11e/f&w=no
: 紧急动员：决战最高法院， 请投庄严一票
: 捍卫你孩子公平竞争入学名校的机会
: 历史性的时刻已经到来了：2/21/2012， 美国最高法院决定审理用"族裔" 的理由来提
: 高亚裔和白人高校入学门槛的做法是否违宪。您--关爱
: 孩子未来的父母--现在就可以花一分钟时间来帮助孩子增大孩子上 他们理想大学的机
|
|
