2013 (154)
2015 (47)
2016 (67)
2017 (115)
2018 (85)
2019 (93)
2020 (173)
2021 (141)
2022 (166)
2023 (174)
美国亚裔教育联盟(AACE)主席赵宇空在不太懂美国名牌大学的录取原则时，就指控名校歧视，并且相当不妥地用自己儿子做为例证。他的下文在文学城曾经引来不少留言，我还曾写过一篇文章回应他们申诉耶鲁歧视的事情。我曾经是相当反对平权法案的人士，当时抗议加州SCA5时文学城专栏就用过我的文章，但是这次大选让我看到川粉们极端的自私自利行为，使我的立场有些松动，虽然仍然反对美国平权对亚裔的歧视。然而，我不可想像毫无社会关怀心的人士的后代大量入读哈佛耶鲁后，美国是否会变成像中国当今那样的社会达尔文主义横行的社会，更是觉得美国应该适当照顾那些愿意服务美国非洲裔聚集的内城的年轻人读医学院。
赵宇空文章：
赵宇空：我为什么鼓励孩子申诉藤校？
http://www.wenxuecity.com/blog/201610/63216/1411398.html
文学城网友（我和其他两位）留言：
雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-11 20:23:52:
Correction: My sympathy to your kid's application outcome. Although it's quite tough for all Chinese American students, National Merit Finalist is not such a big deal as you stated in your article. Unfortunately he needs much more to be competitive for top schools.
Derrick_Liu 发表评论于 2016-10-12 07:14:04
1）你儿子的学校，甚至你儿子的学区，今年有被这两所藤校录取的吗？2）你能指出哪位被该两所藤校录取的学生，因为歧视的原因取代了你儿子“本来应该被录取的位置“？
3）同样获得国家优秀学生奖学金其它七千个学生，是否都被排名前二十的学校录取？
4）你们学区另外100 名被前二十学校录取的同学中亚裔被歧视了吗？
5）有任何一个有权威的人士认证：你儿子符合这两所藤校的录取标准吗？
答案：
1）你儿子的学区没有人被这两所学校录取。所谓鸡头在差区更容易上藤的秘诀，没有成功。你儿子没有因此入藤校，你儿子的印度裔同学也没占到便宜。况且印度同学居然没有同时报冤，去教育部请愿，看样子人家没觉得被歧视啊？
2）你无法列出任何学生取代你儿子的证据。
3）不是。其中2500 个奖是学校发的，几乎都不是前二十的学校。两所藤校也不发。
4）？
5）没有。This is a lottery. 如果你不能证明儿子够格，如何能证明藤校歧视你儿子？Blum 先生的律师不会接你儿子的案子。
你这个案子的证据也太弱了。等着被回绝吧。中国科技大学培养出来的学生，不能在上述五个问题都没搞清楚或者是减分答案的情况下，就拉大旗做虎皮吧？Cal 今年录取了数千亚裔。Cal 如果没有录取你儿子，是不是和两个藤校同罪呀？证明歧视，最关键的一条是被告（即录取官）蓄意（intentionally）歧视原告（你儿子），如果是由法庭判决的话。你不可能有这两所藤校录取官蓄意歧视你儿子的证据。至于你处处强调的前二十学校都没录取一证据，其实说明二藤校不录取是情有可原的。 Cal都不录，哥大能录吗？逻辑啊！
我这是实话实说。我知道的例子，一个华裔学生，PSAT 考砸了，NMSF 的资格都没拿到。但以前参加数学竞赛的成绩不错，曾经数次到 MIT 参加数学比赛，虽然 SAT 成绩也没到 2300，一样 EA MIT 成功；后 RD P 成功。一个连 NMSF 资格都没有的申请人被 MIT 录取，能否证明 MIT 歧视像你儿子这种 NMS 获得者？不能。其一，PSAT 偶然性很高；其二，即使是 NMS 奖金获得者，不过是两次标准考试没出漏子而已，并不是什么一定能被前二十学校录取的板上定钉子的护身符。
另一个是八年级才来美国的华裔学生，英文程度不佳，但活动能力超群。即使 SAT 仅仅 2120，GPA 3.8，仍然 EA Duke 成功，让我们为他骄傲。如果仅看 SAT 和 GPA，这位同学可能不如你儿子的成绩亮眼（假设你儿子 SAT 高于 2120），他被录取，你儿子没有被录取，能说明 Duke 歧视亚裔吗？不能。
即使是NMS奖，你所谓七千人得主都是在当年录取结果分晓之后才确定的。你居然把这个奖作为被藤校歧视的证据，属于自欺欺人。诚实点儿，仅列一个NMSF并不丢人。
如果你儿子申请了前二十名大学中的八所以上，没有一个大学伸出橄榄枝，绝大多数的可能是他本身条件不够格，而不是歧视。
再者，瓜田李下，你身为主席，即使你儿子被歧视，为避嫌，也应该 recuse yourself from his case. This would have showed your professionalism. It would be far-fetched that your son is the only or most qualified candidate for this year's complaint. Your judgment is presumably obscured by your personal interest in this case.
Be a graceful loser. That is not the end of the world.
czhz 发表评论于 2016-10-12 09:44:19:
我非常认真地把文章读了2-3遍，有几点想法：
1）如果只是作为一般性的呼吁，笼统点没有问题。但要起诉两所特定的学校，你必须给出针对这两所学校的具体事例和证据，不能笼统。呼吁大人不能欺负小孩没错，但不能仅凭这么个理念就指责你邻居家大人欺负你儿子。
2）同样文章没有给出这两所学校歧视令郎的具体例证。比如，这两所学校是否录取了某个成绩等各方面不如令郎的学生，如果有，是什么族裔的？
3）你在National Merit上花费了大量的笔墨，将之作为主要证据。National Merit翻译成中文很好听“国家优秀学生奖学金”，但实际上仅仅是一家公司或基金会，主要依据是一次PSAT考试。假如我是大学，我为什么要让另一家机构来替我作决定，我为何要以一次PSAT的成绩为录取依据？
4）关键部分语焉不详。比如“他在其高中的科学奥林匹克、辩论队以及科学知识竞赛等学生组织中担任主席或队长等职务。” 他担任所有这些团体的主席，队长，还是部分？这些团体取得了什么样的成绩，他的贡献是什么？要知道，参加，甚至组建一个团体并不说明问题。如果他能证明在学生社团建设方面达到你的水平，或者一半的水平，那倒是很了不起的领导才能。还有，你说“他的写作十分优秀，常常在校报写稿。” 这只说明经常投稿，并不说明写作优秀。
5）有趣的是，你是选择性语焉不详，有些部分很具体，比如“他作为主要骨干参与的FTC机器人团队曾两次打入了世界级竞赛。” 一句话，把他的role （主要骨干），项目名称（FTC机器人），取得成绩（两次打入了世界级竞赛），交待得清清楚楚。
6）听说你在中国出版了一本关于申请美国名校的书，特别强调美国名校招生不以分数为唯一根据，重视课外活动，并教人如何包装课外活动。说实话，我对此是很鄙视的，因为这类书，以及新东方之类的机构，严重干扰了正常的招生过程。说白了，是在指导人如何作弊：呈现一个虚假的自己，试图fool招生官。这也让我疑惑，令郎的课外活动是他本人的兴趣，还是在你指导下，制造出来的？特别是，他怎么会担任如此多社团的主席/队长，覆盖面又如此之广，写作，辩论，科学竞赛？
7）你起诉的哈佛，哥大，亚裔已经达到了22% 和 28%。 假如再高的话，以后谁为西裔和黑裔社区服务？中国为了培养民族干部，设立了专门的民族学院，普通大学也有民族班，难道美国就不需要培养特定的民族工作人员？
我的回应博文：
申诉耶鲁歧视是选错了学校和证人
You said:
"这本来也不deserve my response, 之前就说了 ： 废除一条法令，就是回到该法令之前的状态，这是常规逻辑。好了，这真的是最后一次，你尽可以另找课堂教人如何make argument.
------------
You seem to have a habit of not responding to questions and not reading questions before responding even if you do respond. You have a problem thinking and speaking logically.
To make it clear, I quote my original question below:
"Third, it is not clear what you mean by "废除一条法令，就是回到该法令之前的状态", what is returning to the state prior to the establishment of the said law? Is it the set of enacted laws? Is it the societal state? If it is the former, it is a vacuous truism, because it is true by definition and there is nothing to be said. If it is the latter, it is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics that the macroscopic states are irreversible. So your statement per se is either vacuous or makes no sense. You will have to do better to better express yourself."
If you do not understand what the second law of thermodynamics is, what I am saying is simply that nothing can turn time back and nothing can be reverted to the original state, much less using societal laws. So 废除一条法令，就是回到该法令之前的状态 is an impossibility. You will have to specify what exactly what you mean by "reverting back to prior state".
You are so funny to ask the general people to give you a so called quote. When 我看到川粉们极端的自私自利行为 to take an anti-AA action in support Trump, I totally agree with AA. The reason is in the long-run, Asian American or Chinese American can not have the ability and passion to work in some area, such as South of Chicago, where 芝加哥“血腥”圣诞周末 12人被枪杀40多人伤. Can you let me know, you will let your son or daughter, after graduate from Ivy schools, to work in the “血腥”圣诞周末芝加哥 area? Can she or he have the ability to be a leader of Africa America? If your answer is yes, I will be in the team of anti-AA. If not, you better to keep quiet. I support AA just I know 以夷制夷 is a good way to lead Africa American, and to get better and more good Africa America leaders is to have them well educated. That is only way to want my and all Chinese American next generation to live in a peaceful and safe area in USA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
这本来也不deserve my response, 之前就说了 ： 废除一条法令，就是回到该法令之前的状态，这是常规逻辑。好了，这真的是最后一次，你尽可以另找课堂教人如何make argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not even deserve my response!
It is really late now, but if you want, I can show you later an example how you could make your argument so that it is clear to your audience what argument you are trying to refute and what your refuting argument is.
It is ironic that you are questioning my capacity for logic, while not knowing how to make a simple argument and being evasive and cherry pick the questions I raised at you.
Could you please please read my last post again? I am saying the way you make an argument is wrong. I re-paste my previous post below for you convenience. Until now, we do not know the argument you are opposing is "某些人认为废除了AA，就会按分数录取". You should have stated that in the very beginning then argue against it because nowhere in the original blog this is stated nor anywhere in the comment section.
Beside this issue, what about your claim "慢慢回到1960s年代之前了"? Are you not going to answer to that?
--------------
First of all, this is not how you should make an argument. If you want to refute an argument (from whomever), you should set up the argument clearly then refute it. You have not done so, thus your readers --- I included --- have no idea what you are trying to do. All we have is your claim "废除AA，并不等于就能象某些人想像的按分数录取，有可能慢慢回到1960s年代之前了。" Then the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else.
Second, whatever your target argument is, you can not assume it is the argument all people oppose AA hold. At least that is not my argument.
Third, it is not clear what you mean by "废除一条法令，就是回到该法令之前的状态", what is returning to the state prior to the establishment of the said law? Is it the set of enacted laws? Is it the societal state? If it is the former, it is a vacuous truism, because it is true by definition and there is nothing to be said. If it is the latter, it is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics that the macroscopic states are irreversible. So your statement per se is either vacuous or makes no sense. You will have to do better to better express yourself.
I hope you understand my argument. It is not clear what your argument is. Could you please state clearly what you are proposing?
Here are some of my guesses of what you trying to say:
1) You agree with AA and the present status quo.
2) You agree with AA in principle, but consider the quota the ivy league schools allotted to American children of Asian descent too low.
3) You agree with AA in principle, but consider the quota the ivy league schools allotted to American children of Asian descent too high.
Which is it? Or maybe you have another proposition?
Please state explicitly and clearly.
First of all, this is not how you should make an argument. If you want to refute an argument (from whomever), you should set up the argument clearly then refute it. You have not done so, thus your readers --- I included --- have no idea what you are trying to do. All we have is your claim "废除AA，并不等于就能象某些人想像的按分数录取，有可能慢慢回到1960s年代之前了。" Then the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else.
Second, whatever your target argument is, you can not assume it is the argument all people oppose AA hold. At least that is not my argument.
So what is the argument that you are trying to oppose? Please clearly state your argument.
Third, it is not clear what you mean by "废除一条法令，就是回到该法令之前的状态", what is returning to the state prior to the establishment of the said law? Is it the set of enacted laws? Is it the societal state? If it is the former, it is a vacuous truism, because it is true by definition and there is nothing to be said. If it is the latter, it is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics that the macroscopic states are irreversible. So your statement per se is either vacuous or makes no sense. You will have to do better to better express yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
同意。而且个人认为，亚裔以5%的人口比例，能在藤校占到20%的份额，说明藤校已经在AA的框架下，考虑了亚裔学业相对优秀的现实，即使有不合理处，也没有到歧视的程度。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
目前亚裔占长春藤20%左右，是赵主席认为要提到30%， 所以应该赵主席阐述他将20%提到30%的理由。我只是说他目前给出的说法“让我们的孩子不必这样辛苦” 很荒唐，不能成为理由。
You have not understood my comments. Let me explain it in more detail. czhz argues that 30% is not a reasonable number. But for AA to work, there has to be a quota between 0% and 100%. So I am asking what that reasonable quota should be. czhz's argument against 30% applies to any given number. So no quota works. Thus his argument opposes the Affirmative Action. Yet he supports AA. Therefore he is contradicting himself.
You should read my posts carefully. It is pretty clear I oppose AA. Therefore your question "你告诉我: 亚裔该吃多少? 凭啥要吃30%?" is moot. If you have an answer, you can tell me. But you have to support your claim with logic and reason, because I will question it.
That is exactly what I was referring to in my very first sentence of my very first post "The truly sad thing about all these fuss with discrimination and the purported remedy Affirmative Action is that the root cause is the meddling of the state (as in nation state, or government) in the private economic affair of the citizens." Without getting into too much details, a funding should be strictly limited to, say, research in a scientific or technological field and not be used as a political blackmail for political purposes. Otherwise, it would incite endless political conflicts (what if LGBT community wants to have the college kids indoctrinated in their philosophy loathed by conservative religious groups?). You are practically inviting unresolvable conflicts that runs contrary to the very philosophy of a free society with all people of disparate beliefs living in peace and tolerance.
You can tell some good stories. But you seem to have some difficulty reading and do not seem to comprehend logical argument very well. At least you understand that we agree "你首先认可了我们生活在一个"free market " 的资本主义社会" and "Run 私立大学也是一个business." By the way, the correct phrasing is "Running 私立大学也是一个business." All your arguments support my proposition that the private enterprises have the right and freedom to make their own business decisions free of government coercion and that the Affirmative Action should be abolished. If it is not clear to you yet and behooves me to state it explicitly, let me spell it out for you: we are in agreement. Do you "明白了"？ Are you too "naive" or too simple -- I am sure you are not too young?
你要想问czhz亚裔入学比例多少合适? 我只想问你: 4个白人, 3个黑人, 2个老墨, 1个亚裔, 同时面对这块教育的蛋糕. 你告诉我: 亚裔该吃多少? 凭啥要吃30%?
One thing you have to consider is that many of these schools receive federal or state funding. As these public fundings come from tax payers, you have to make sure those underrepresented races are being treated fairly at least in a financial sense. For a purely privately-funded school, they don't have to follow AA rules.
Your comments particularly that "这些长青籘大学是那些校友们捐献的，他们当然有绝对权利决定应该录取谁？" argue against the very premise of the Affirmative Action. Repeal of AA will remove all basis of such law suits.
So you do not have evidence but only your prejudice for either of yours claims. As for your excuse for unable to support your own claim that "关于第2个，你问错人了，应该让那些认为“废除AA，就能按分数录取” 的人提供根据", that is simply absurd. Nobody but you made the second claim. Why should anyone else but you argue for your own proposition?
You deem the quota threshold of 30% ludicrous. So what quota do you think is reasonable? All your argument would work against any quota. So you are arguing against the quota system which the Affirmative Action is all about. Thus you are opposing the Affirmative Action. That is a very welcoming contradiction.
关于第2个，你问错人了，应该让那些认为“废除AA，就能按分数录取” 的人提供根据，为什么“废除AA，就能按分数录取”？因为按常规，废除AA，就是回到AA之前，而AA之前，可不是按照你亚裔的分数录取的。
Regarding your argument of AA benefiting the Chinese, what evidence do you have to support your two claims?
Let me know which sentences do you have difficulty understanding. I will help you. I am sorry I can not type Chinese as I do not have a Chinese word processor right now.
In my haste, I lost two words in the sentence "In the case of a private educational institution, it has the full discretion of deciding which customer (student) to deal with (admit) and what price (tuition fee) the trade (provision of education) take place." It should read "In the case of a private educational institution, it has the full discretion of deciding which customer (student) to deal with (admit) and at what price (tuition fee) the trade (provision of education) to take place." I lost one word in "With that premise, it simply begs the question on what ground oppose the Affirmative Action." It should read "With that premise, it simply begs the question on what ground you oppose the Affirmative Action." "You" here refers to the author of the blog.
Other than these typos, there is nothing wrong with my English. But please do let me know which parts you do not understand.
"7）你起诉的哈佛，哥大，亚裔已经达到了22% 和 28%。 假如再高的话，以后谁为西裔和黑裔社区服务？中国为了培养民族干部，设立了专门的民族学院，普通大学也有民族班，难道美国就不需要培养特定的民族工作人员？"
reeks of the odor of socialistic quota and planned economy. With that premise, it simply begs the question on what ground oppose the Affirmative Action. These kinds of arguments are open invitation for all kinds of racial/gender/class bigotry and the associated frivolous law suits. With that premise, people like 赵宇空 is right to demand a piece of the pie by all means possible, suing the schools included.