The following newsletters are distributed by 80-20 Educational Foundation. To see newsletters from 80-20 PAC, please visit their website at http://www.80-20initiative.net.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Columbia U. AsAm Debate on College Admissions

   S. B. Woo was a panelist at Columbia Law School participating in a debate on "Fisher vs. U. of TX", organized by Columbia Asian Pacific American law students. His opponent was Khin Mai Aung of AALDEF.

   S.B.'s opening statement, which was limited to 4 minutes, is shown below:

   "When Affirmative Action was first proposed, minorities loved it. After all, Affirmative Action means: Owing to the historic wrongs done by the majority, minorities will have some advantage in (1) workplace hiring & promotion, (2) government contracts, & (3) college & school admissions.

   HOWEVER, BAD implementation of the affirmative college admission program has ACTUALLY made it ANTI-affirmative. I'll submit to you 2 powerful statistical facts.

   Fact 1: Princeton professor Thomas Espenshade found that in order for AsAm students to gain equal access to elite colleges, their AVERAGE score must be 140 pts. higher than whites; 270 pts. higher than Hispanics, and 450 pts. higher than blacks. Think! Why should AsAm applicants score higher than whites? Isn't that ANTI-affirmative? Isn't that blatant discrimination against us?

   Fact 2: UCLA & Purdue professors have found that even black and Hispanic students admitted through a strong racial preference suffered from "ACADEMIC MIS-Match." Professors teach to the middle of the class. Students whose ACADEMIC training is way below the average, can't follow. So such students mostly either switched out of their chosen major in Law and STEM disciplines or failed to graduate. AGAIN, isn't that ANTI-affirmative?

   Ms. Aung mentioned the advantages of diversity. No argument. But must diversity be achieved at the expense of Asian Am. students? Isn't the 14th amendment for the equal protection of all Americans a more important consideration than diversity?

   Ms. Aung CLAIMED that Hmong students might have benefited from the program. If so, for every Hmong student to benefit, a HUGE number of other AsAm students must suffer a disadvantage. BECAUSE only under such an extremely distorted ratio of beneficiaries vs. those who were damaged could the AVERAGE score, I repeat the AVERAGE score, for AsAm students still be 140 pts. higher than whites.

   Finally, let's get a historic perspective. The Am's Revolution for independence was opposed by some American colonists. Women's suffrage was strongly opposed by many society women of that period. Field-slaves' plans to escape were often betrayed by house- slaves. Strange! How a people's struggle for equal opportunity and freedom is often opposed by some of its own members. It's strange indeed. END!"

   Asian Am. orgs' EARLIER support for an "affirmative college admission" policy was UNDERSTANDABLE. Their CONTINUED support of the same is UNCONSCIONABLE, after the policy's anti-Asian Am. practices and its damaging effect of academic mismatch were known. The following larger AsAm orgs. still filed amicus briefin the Supreme Court to support the current admission plan:

    AALDEF http://aaldef.org/contact-us/
    APALC http://apalc.org/contact
    AAJC information@advancingequality.org

UNCONSCIONABLE ! Speak up! Tell them to stop and that they don't represent you. You must protect yourself from such "Asian Am" orgs.

   FORWARD this e-newsletter to your friends. To comment, click
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp


Sincerely,
S. B. Woo, a volunteer
President, 80-20 Educational Foundation (EF)
http://www.80-20EF.org
 

Copyright 2007-2014. All rights reserved.