我们到底在争什么？藤校还是平权
李春燕-1142 02/28 33771
4.5/10
Mr. Blum 到底要做什么？2/28/2015，Mr. Blum来新州李文斯顿讲座，解答了近百位家长和学生的众多问题（下附音频）。他的目的就是结束用肤色决定录取 (End the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions)，进一步建立组织敦促藤校公布相关数据。
在场听众从理论到现实问题一直讨论到Mr. Blum要赶去飞机场，相信即使原来在媒体上听说过他的诉讼，到现场听取演讲感受还是极不相同（英文摘记见下）。
Mr. Blum要争取Harvard等学校展示出是否把亚裔申请者单独放一堆（a separate pile for Asian applicants)。我们了解到当年犹太人没有法律依据来诉讼，现在因为有近来几件最高法院的案件，especially Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 使得起诉藤校就有了法律依据。是否因为藤校是私校就不需要执行这些法律？不是，藤校也是接受政府资金，所以必须守法。
我在讲座中问Mr. Blum，为什么一些反对诉讼哈佛的却是来自亚裔？（Much criticism of your lawsuit came from Asians. What do you say to those who have internalized the Asian penalty？）他说当年犹太人抗争升学歧视，也是有另一些犹太人公开反对这种抗争的。
从结果看出，那些反对犹太人抗争的并未阻挡平权进程。近一阵观察华人投入社会的种种行动，体会到被恶意的人反对还能接受，但常常有好心人士把反思、精神健康、不要爬藤等等观念混淆其中，则使人难免沮丧。
每次一有学生站出来要挑战这个系统（ie Jian Li in NJ, and Michael Wang in CA)，往往受到华裔之间自己的攻击，有说他们不够好啊，我知道比他们更好的也被拒了等等。华人还容易用那些主流社会对我们的偏见来抨击自己的下一代，诸如这个孩子体育不好，那个孩子没领导力，亚裔整体缺乏创造力等等。殊不知这些被媒体和政治渲染的偏见已经被数据证明其伪。我们的孩子在领导力，课外活动，创造力，关怀社区上都是凸显成绩。这些偏见也许正被大学用来限制我们优秀的二代，我们应该利用social media 和英文媒体改变这种偏见，而不是一再接受如此划分。
再有一类是接受了另一个看似正面的偏见（stereotype）就是“模范少数族裔” （model minority），似乎我们取得的成绩是应该的，不劳而获的。这个模范族裔的形象一方面被用来压制其他少数族裔（几十年来媒体的暗流是，看亚裔不是能做到吗？为什么非裔拉丁裔不行？），另一方面给我们自己以及下一代造成巨大负担。亚裔学生中流传的Asian Fail （that below 80 is considered an Asian fail）就是如此。我们俱乐部几年前就讨论过学生所受的压力。很多人怪虎妈狼爸造成此现象，但我们能说“模范族裔”没有加重这一怪状吗？也许还不知先有蛋还是先有鸡呢。
如此造成自己孩子被拒但不想站出来，觉得自己不如其他华裔孩子优秀。这就是默默接受不公，互相恶性竞争，而不去联合起来改变现状 （internalized the penalty and just compete among ourselves, instead of fighting to change the status quo）。我们要打破这个升学的玻璃天花板 （glass ceiling）。
当然还有第三类亚裔，很在乎政治正确，一提亚裔申诉，就讲出“我们不要盯着藤校嘛”这类看似清高的话。然而是否盯着藤校和改变大环境岂非两码事？如果the Asian quota能被打破，我们下一代今后有选择，可以去奔藤，也可以超然地说“我不在乎上不上藤校”。正如Mr. Blum的目标，我们拒绝因为肤色被区别对待。Mr. Blum对因种族被歧视是有切身体会的，他提及小时候全家去迈阿密度假，有酒店不接受犹太人使在场听众动容。
昨有朋友问，为什么我们不能改变亚裔不关心社区的形象，让二代到贫困区做义工和辅导作业？我们应该组织起来改变形象。首先，我们不确信这一形象是否又是自我批评得到的结论；其次，在高中生们为那几百分的SAT和千分之一的GPA苦战的时候，做义工的每分每秒都是以牺牲睡眠换来的。我们作为家长的还想再往他们的小肩膀上加压吗？升学族裔限制的改变将使我们从恶性竞争中解脱一些，就会更有余力帮助其他社区。
事实是即使如此压力下，我看到二代们已经走出自己的小圈子，在大社会中尽义务，施展才华。我们希望打破限制后，二代们能更自如地选择他们要做的事，何乐而不为呢？
那么孩子还没到高中，是否高高挂起了呢？Mr. Blum提到近期纽约特殊高中立法，以及institutions should reflect demographics 这种越来越有市场的谬论 (false narrative)，我们意识到，随着亚裔人口增加，这种升学压制只会越来越严重。为什么我们不为初中生，小学生们创造更好的环境呢？小娃家长可以转告有高中生的朋友们关注Mr. Blum的诉讼，更可以说服您所在的亚裔组织参与我们的联署。还可以利用英文媒体 （social media such as Facebook）改变偏见。
我们到底要做什么？期待有更多的第四类华裔，他们不是像有些华裔政治正确者形容的“看什么都是歧视”；他们意识到哪些不公，就发出声音。他们关注美国社会，投入竞选，参与学校，是真正的美国人。他们关怀贫困的少数族裔，但深知悲天悯人不等于放弃争取平等的机会。引用一位朋友的反馈“我们不是在乎藤校，而是在乎不被区别对待”。您是哪类人？
星星之火，可以燎原。昨天长岛（下图），今天新州，明天就是全国。
1. 如果有学生被哈佛等校拒绝，联络Students for Fair Admissions at
不需要金钱和时间的投入，他已经筹款打官司，但需要源源不断的生源。
2. 亚裔组织请联络我们，携起手来向教育部申诉（administrative complaints)。
值得欣慰的是，我们的关注还带动了下一代。ABC俱乐部来了近十位学生，还问了精彩问题。我们也要办辩论会。分享音频和几段视频。
感谢驱车近一小时赶来听讲座并录音分享的PCE 活跃分子Angela，还有其他PCE骨干。
学生提问 Student asking how to preempt the racial bias in the middle school stage. Mr. Blum explained the historical progression of racial sentiment.
Segments of Mr. Blum's answer
Student asking how gender and socio-economic status affect college admissions.
转读者反馈“为了公平和尊严而抗争，要坚持，要常态化。” “歧视是文明的倒退，必需予以纠正。强力支持你们！” “谢谢! 即使抗议的当时没有得到最大的胜利，最终的胜利都是靠着一次又一次这样的抗争叠加累积的结果。我们需要把心态从rules follower 的方向转到rules maker 的轨道上来。处于弱势时的所谓"理性" 是为自身懦弱寻找脱辞，我们家长也是在为自己的孩子做榜样。” “我原先对AA是抱有复杂的情绪的，但你有条理的分析让我不纠结了。”
转朋友诙谐总结“春燕，谢谢你的文章。总觉得太长。我将它译成法语。老大的可恨之处就是愚昧。当别人把脏水倒在你的头上，还在检查自己是否站错了地方。老二是稀泥糊不上墙，一方面感叹命运不公，一方面又压迫更弱势。至于小三，必须是老鼠过街人人喊打。表面上冠冕堂皇，现实上男盗女娼。他们除了不要脸，什么都要。星期六的玩笑。”
宣传讲座的背景文章
Quick notes:
Goal: End the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions, then form an organization to enforce disclosure of admissions data.
Harvard: 19% in the 1990s, 17% in 2014, while Asians applying to Harvard almost tripling.
UT, UMich etc tell the number of Asians who applied, but Harvard stopped disclosing the number of Asian applicants after the 2003 UMich case about racial quotas.
% scoring above 2100 SAT, 39% are Asian.
Above 2200: 45% are Asians
Above 2300: 55% are Asians
Top scoring Asians make up over half of the application pool
Asking parents' help in the lawsuit
Membership organization: no pledge, parent membership, student who has been denied admission to a university. Need students to tell Blum what happened to them: grades, SAT, ECs, and college of rejection.
Confidential, names of the students will only be revealed after students and parents agreed.
If compelled by the counts, will you be willing to give your name to the judge?
At some point, students who agreed to let the public know, may be revealed.
No one has been harassed by faculty or school.
Fisher was never harassed, employed by Fortune 500.
4 Asians stepped forward: names on the lawsuit, if revealed, so be it.
We don't want this to continue year after year, siblings, relatives
Foreign students not included
Justice Kennedy's position may be key.
Justice O'Connor 25 years
Q: What is a fair standard? Blum: guiding principal is that race should not be a factor.
No box to check, last name should not be revealed to the admissions committee, can not be a loaded essay: tell us how your background will help contribute the diversity of the campus.
CalTech: does not use race, 1992 25%, now 40%
Economic condition: lower the bar a bit, disadvantage
Q: University insists on racial diversity, is this a proper request?
A: Today it is still allowed.
Harvard: says it is allowed so as to achieve racial diversity.
Fisher case narrowed the ability to raise or lower the bar, in that now colleges must find other ways to achieve the racial diversity
Law should be race blind, race should not be an element.
Argument: false narrative: institutions should reflect the current population %. Blum: can't have policies to mirror demographics (note: in this context, demographics means racial %, not the broader gender/age/religion/marital status distribution).
Chunyan comments: 1. Politicians esp in CA attempted to bring demographics in not just colleges but tech companies. Politicians cater to the demands of the voters.
2. Asians criticized you. Whoever stepped up has faced criticism from the Asian community.
35,000 that applied, perhaps half is Asian, hope to interview admin officers and deans. Asians one pile, Asians compete w one another. Racial balancing is unconstitutional.
Q: How did the discrimination against Jews end? Blum: perhaps after WWII, The Holocaust in Europe changed antisemitism in the US. In the past, hotels would not accept Jews.
Q: Who are the ideal candidate for Blum?
Blum: Students self identify by contacting the organization. Blum will not contact the high school that student graduates. Time commitment: call or in person, talking to parents and students. Zero time commitment, student has no responsibilities in the lawsuit but has to agree. No $ commitment. At some point, the name may come out.
Princeton attracts large engineering Asian students, so it is harder.
Jews did not get legal action to challenge the courts because there was not a legal basis in the past. Article 6 provides basis for these lawsuits.
Legal team: 25 years, polarizing. Large national firms don't want to get involved. Smaller litigation firms with qualified lawyers.
Q: Harvard is different from Fisher because Harvard is private. Blum: CivilRights laws apply to Harvard because it takes federal funds.
Race in employment: governed by different case law, specific company looking for African American employees or Latino employees serving a segment of the customers or specific tasks.
Q: is Holistic process bad in general? Blum: still has a role, ie, socio-economic status.
Grades/SAT are eminent, otherwise there is a mismatch. Duke study: students switched majors to less rigorous programs. Abilities and academic training should match the rigor of programs.
Q: Supreme Court is really important. We are weak in political power. Blum: hope to finish the case in the court.
Q: Why is Blum doing this? Blum: ran for congress, witnessed the Texas legislature gerrymandered the congressional districts. Fundamentally anti American--geographic unit should not be tailored for politics. Sued the Supreme Court and won. After 25 lawsuits. More impassioned, more involved. Also represented African Americans.
