Tucker Carlson vs Harvard Alumnus: Why Does Harvard Discriminate Against Asians

Tucker Carlson: Why Does Harvard Discriminate Against Asians

Published on Dec 21, 2016

Tucker Carlson vs Harvard Alumnus: Why Does Harvard Discriminate Against Asians




Comments:

(@张炜)

华左再次出卖华人学生利益,公然为AA辩护

(@piper)

Another example of good school still produces dumb students.

(@EC)

What a dumb ass.


The split at the heart of Chinese America




Poll: 2017 VA State Election - Attorney General 

Candidates: 

(R) John Adams vs. (D) Mark Herring





Is Harvard Discriminating Against Asians?

Published on Jul 16, 2015

Harvard is accused of rejecting qualified Asian students. And some Asians feel like they have to change who they are to get in.





From: 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-public-letter-to-new-chinese-immigrants_us_58d203f4e4b002482d6e6c84



A Public Letter To New Chinese Immigrants
03/22/2017 12:59 am ET | Updated 13 minutes ago

I have learned a profound lesson. I will never forget it.

I recently wrote a blog here about the Asian American movement and newer Chinese immigrants. It went “viral.” I had hoped to promote cooperation. I urged an audience of progressive activists to reach out and respect their cousins who have arrived more recently and might not agree with all of their advocacy.

However, good intentions are not enough; consequences matter. I was insensitive to how the words would be received, including in translation and repetition. Many people interpreted my message as its opposite. They understood me as saying I, an American proud to be of Chinese heritage, felt superior to Chinese who have come to these shores in the past generation.

An apology that implies the offended party was to blame is hardly worthwhile. I do not begrudge my friends who were hurt. I see how they inferred tone. “They” noticed the framing of “us” versus “them.” The shared aspiration is for “them” and “us” to be as one.

To make amends, it is worth repeating: Bridge building is crucial. That means across the Pacific Ocean, as well as with whites and blacks. Yet it also encompasses the vast Chinese diaspora. There are generational divides that can be united through effort, and only through effort.

In addressing the long-time civil rights champions, whom I admire, about the community for whom they would fight, among whom I count myself, I made two points.

First, as a matter of principle, we must strive to be inclusive. This is a pure concept. We cannot say we are fighting for someone if in fact we are fighting with them. It would be hypocritical.

Second, if that were not persuasive on its own, the demographic trends matter. We cannot condescend to people who are like us but for a few years difference in residence here. All of us, “we” and “they,” must be welcoming. That is not simply for strategy. But for those to whom I was speaking, unwilling to accept the first point, they ought to be won over by the second point.

It might be tempting to suggest that issues of race, culture, and identity are fraught, contentious, and subject to misreading. That is all the more so played out among strangers through social media. But I realize that I should have been more clear. I am entrusted with a leadership role. I am both honored and humbled that others believe I can represent them, including to those who already have stereotypes in their head that are less than positive. That means I have to fulfill a responsibility.

Please allow me to conclude personally. So many who had contacted me have responded with the intensity we usually reserve for intimates. I embrace those who have come from China to America. My parents were once among them. I would not be who I am but for their sacrifices. They believed in a dream that continues to beckon the world over. Indeed, my father helped me appreciate the problem I caused. We — specifically I — can do better.

I applaud those who would argue with me for their assertiveness. If only we all stood up and spoke out as they do.

Addendum. Speaking for myself subjects others to risks. Needless to say, my observations are mine, and mine alone. None of those great institutions with which I am privileged to be affiliated should be impugned by any of this, ranging from University of California Hastings College of the Law to Committee of 100 to the United States Department of Education.


致新中国移民一封公开信

吴华扬

 

我最近学到了一个深刻的教训。我永远不会忘记。

我最近写了一篇关于美国亚裔运动和新来中国移民的博客。它在网上被疯传。我曾希望促进合作。我敦促先进的活动家接触和尊重我们最近到达的表亲们,他们不一定认同我们追求的理念。

但是,良好的意图是不足够的,后果也是重要。我的一些用词,包括重复使用和经过翻译,没有适当地从第三者角度考虑到敏感程度。许多人的理解是我原意的相反。他们领会到我,一个对中国根源自豪的美国人,在说比近一代的新中国移民更优越。

怪责被冒犯方的道歉是不值得的。我不会怨恨我受创伤的朋友。我看到他们如何推断音调。 “他们”意识到“我们”与“他们”的框架。而我们共同的愿望是“他们”和“我们” 是一体的。

作为更正,我再次重申:建桥工作是至关重要的。这意味着跨越太平洋,并包括白人和黑人。它也包括了广大的中国侨民。代溝的减少也需要努力再努力。

对于我崇拜的长期维权人士和他们奋斗争取权利,包括我在内,的社团来说,我提出两点。

首先,作为一个原则问题,我们必须具有包容性。这是一个纯粹的概念。如果我们和他们在战斗,我们不能说我们正在为他们而战斗。这是虚伪的。

第二,如果这还不足夠说服力,人口趋势就很重要。我们不能低视与我们相似而比我们少住几年的人。我们,不分彼此,都必须有欢迎态度。这不仅仅是为了战略。

第一点不被接受的话,第二点应该是可被接受的。

种族,文化和身份问题充满争议,容易被误读,特别是通过社交媒体在陌生人中发挥。但我了解到我应该表达得更加清楚。我被委托担当领导重任,作为代表,令我既荣幸亦惶恐。这意味着我必须履行责任。

请允许我作一个总结,许多联系我的人已作出通常为亲密友好预留的强度回应。我拥抱那些从中国来到美国的新移民。我的父母曾经是新移民中的一员。不是他们的牺牲,不会有今天的我。他们的梦想继续蔓延到世界各地。我的父亲帮助我体味我造成的问题。我们 - 特别是我 - 可以做得更好。

我赞扬与我争辩朋友们的自信心。我们都要站起来和他们一样地发声。

附录。我个人说话不应该让他人承担风险。不用说,我的观察是我个人的,只是我个人的。 没有一个我有幸隶属的优秀机构,应该受到任何映射,从加州大学黑斯廷斯大学法学院到百人会到美国教育部。




Comments:

(@Greg)

为什么需要老侨给 space?我不需要侨领们的 space

我在这里的生存space是美国宪法赋予的权利,不是chinatown老侨。如果年轻几十年,然后美国又有亚裔细分,神经病才来美国.

(@Jeremy)

吴文 1)承认新老移民的差异;2)承认 -- 是遗憾地承认 -- “百人团"为代表的精英现在不能代表新移民;3)吴文的目的是呼吁 bridge,而且是呼吁 now 而不是等待新移民的下一代。

…本人的理解

(@Brian)

我来说我读完他的第一篇Private Note的感受吧。我读了大概五遍。我认为他写文章的目的是看到了华裔社区的分裂,和新移民社区越来越Assertive。因此号召老华侨社区要主动Reach Out,和新移民社区共同建设华裔社区。他关于新移民的种种描述是他听到的,可能也看到的。写出来的目的是要引起他的目标读者,老华侨社区,对他的文章的共鸣。我个人不认为有任何不舒服的。可能对他Generalization的方法觉得不太精确,但鉴于篇幅,没有十全十美的事。我个人认为这篇文章至少出现两个地方的认知误区:1)新移民社区许多人对老华侨社区在过去几十年没有把华裔的地位提高是有抱怨的。比如蒙郡华裔这么多,也有民选官员。但是华裔社区参政议政程度非常低,社会/政治地位也很低。自己没干好,还拿领导架子来说话。新移民社区有抵触是正常的反应 2)号召老华侨主动接触新移民社区的第二个原因是新移民人多。这是事实,但是摆在文章里明讲,有点机会主义(就是觉得没办法)的味道。诚意不足?这样有些新移民觉得既然这样,那就算了。尽管这样,我还是欢迎这篇文章的。非常及时。就像华裔社区在文章发表前是个大脓包。原来华裔社区领袖的战略是大家都是华裔,要说话一个声音说。这篇文章把这个脓包捅破了,大家都得到解放。我觉得华裔社区需要新的战略:在有共同利益的地方,一起使力。比如为华裔维权。在政治观点不同的地方,各自使力。但要建立机制,同意不互相拆台,或者暗地里下绊子。谢谢阅读。

(@Greg) 

百人会长吴教授是肩负统一战线的任务,非要把暂时interest不一样的华人整在一起。

(@Taylor)

不必强求绑在一起。有共同利益时在一起。

(@Cherry)

Progressive 的可能很难和tea party 搞在一起啊。不是长一张脸就可以 I got your back. 我觉得合作要现实一点,不然最后还指不定谁成了蒋公呢。

(@Yin)

关于吴教授,反对的并不是反对与吴教授交流,只是反对在庆祝亚裔节的时候把他当嘉宾请来。Wootton High School PTA 举办亚裔节初宗原是要与华二代,我们的孩子一起庆祝我们共同为之骄傲的文化和习俗,找一个可以inspire 孩子们的成功华裔。现在要请一个有争议的,与我们家长都还没交流清楚的人物,我们想达到什么样的目的呢?而且他的讲题是怎么在亚裔父母与孩子之间建立桥梁。如果我们与吴教授的桥梁都摇摇欲坠, 怎么可能与他在与孩子建立桥梁的问题上有任何共同的看见?我们又想让孩子看见什么?看华裔之间的撕裂吗?
我不反对与吴教授交流。换一个时间,换一个平台,换一个方式,我双手赞成。但是亚裔节嘉宾的位置应该让给另一个更名符其实的,联络华裔情结,给我们孩子正能量的人。

最近很流行一句政治俗语:不要为了一件象征性的行为而分裂已经分裂的社区。套用一下就是不要为了一个象征性的讲座而分裂已经分裂的华人社区。值得吗?吴教授的文章已经在华人社区引起极大的争议,不要再为了这次讲座而引起更大的争议。
吴教授换一个时间,换一个平台来平等交流,我保证报名参加。

(@Dr. Ge)

越来越觉得这种以种族为凝聚力的想法有些不切实际 就算 Hispanic 里面也有左右之分的 按新老移民来划分也有些牵强

(@kc)

转:“Frank Wu很像我奶奶。早年被婆婆欺负压迫,怀恨在心。多年媳妇熬成婆,来欺负我妈。没想到我妈根本不鸟这套。Frank气急败坏[捂脸]我奶奶总结的婆媳关系,肯定就像frank总结的种族关系,也是以经验教训为基础的,所以自己深信不疑。没想到我妈和我们这些新移民根本不鸟他们那一套。我们上来就是平等看事情,自己的权利不愿意被侵犯。更有我们这些拥枪黄洪波。Frank倒吸一口凉气,突出一口老血。”

(@Yin)

关于吴教授的文章,我想起这样的比喻:
一个英俊潇洒的小伙子要去求亲,女孩虽丑,但他看重她美丽的内心。小伙子想证明他的爱是真的爱,纯正的爱,高尚的爱,他想让女孩的父亲放心地把女孩交给他。他这样开始对女孩的父亲说:伯父,我对你女儿的爱是出自内心的。你的女儿又胖又矮,眼睛小,鼻子塌; 而且她吃饭囫囵吞枣, 一点修养都没有...只见老伯脸色发青...“你给我离开!永远也不要踏我家的门”老伯指着门口。他根本不会听后边小伙子说的“但是”,以及小伙子高尚的情操。




From

Distinguished Professor, University of California Hastings College of the Law;
Chair, Committee of 100

A Private Note to Asian American Activists About New Arrivals
03/18/2017 08:57 am ET 

I write to you as my long-time friends, those who have fought not only for civil rights but also to include Asian Americans in all progressive causes. I know from working alongside you that it has not been easy to persuade African Americans, Latinos, Jews, and others who have been dedicated to social justice that their principles extend to Asian immigrants and their American-born children and grandchildren. Some have been skeptical, others hostile. Yet I send you a note now to express a different concern. It is as sensitive if not more so, but it also is even more serious a potential barrier to your bridge building efforts. It could signal the end of the project altogether.

Here it is. The most recent set of newcomers from Asia, in particular those arriving from China, do not share our commitments. I implore you to reach out, to listen to them respectfully, and to try to persuade them. That requires that you — and I — not assume they need educating by us, as if we were self-appointed teachers, they permanently students. They will have none of that. They have experienced it enough.

Everywhere I encounter them, whether in suburban Southern California; the “Avenues” of western San Francisco; Silicon Valley; on the East Coast; or in communities that have developed seemingly overnight where there once were virtually no Asian faces to be seen, they complain. They are frustrated. I am familiar with the source of that sentiment: the literal historic exclusion and the tangible ongoing denial of equality.

But here is what worries me. While I have hesitated to call out the problem, waiting makes it worse. They seem to be as angry about Asian Americans, those who call themselves by that name and who are more assimilated, as they are about whites and blacks. They tell me so.

We do not represent them, We are not sympathetic to them. We have betrayed them. We cannot even communicate in the language they deem ours. One of the common words for “Mandarin” in Mandarin itself translates as “the national language” — though I am advised they’d prefer a dialect such as Toisan in any event.

The greatest ironies are always in the mirror image. To us, they are very Asian. To them, we are very American. We are not quite one another’s people. Waiting for the kids to grow up won’t work. (Yes, more than one of you has said that, only partly in jest.)

The truth is we are different. They come from an ascendent Asia. They can continue to maintain contacts with “the homeland,” thanks to technology. They identify, as our forebears did, not as “Asian,” but by their ethnicity, clan, province, religion, and circumstances. They are American on their own terms.

We are as foreign to them as they are to us, despite others telling us we all look alike. And they are aware of our condescension, even if we would deny it. As with other groups of every color and creed, those who settled, if only slightly earlier, invariably imply they are better than their country cousins. As much as the phrase is appropriated and ironic, even hip, there is a stigma to being “fresh off the boat.” The stereotype is repeated: too much bling, not enough lining up in an orderly manner; nose-picking, spitting, bad driving, passive-aggressive conduct, and, let us hope, at least no dog-eating.

I do not doubt, and you have explained to me privately your concerns with which I do not disagree. Some of our cousins, distant kin who have shown up here, are alarming. They are bigots who do not care about democracy. They believe themselves to be better than other people of color, it hardly is worth pointing out since it is so obvious. They even suppose, not all that secretly, that they will surpass whites. They also might be corrupt albeit by our standards. There is no telling.

They are only starting to assert themselves. They do not claim disadvantage. Just the opposite. They attack, as Asians are not stereotyped for doing. On issue after issue, ranging from diversity in higher education to “illegal” immigration to LGBT rights to police brutality to corporal punishment to capital punishment, they are prepared to line up as a token Asian face on the other side of whatever protest you are organizing. Even on the environment, they feel persecuted for their taste for shark fin soup or exotic delicacies involving endangered species. And good for them. Their accent does not hold them back.

I have heard Asian Americans who have urged civic engagement lament that they find themselves surrounded by Asians who will stand up and speak out, albeit for themselves. A mascot for your opponent, they will be only more infuriated if you suggest they are pawns being used. They sense your embarrassment. They are self-serving for survival.

Be that as it may, I offer two reasons that are compelling enough. I am convinced anyway, to embrace them. It need not be “us” versus “them,” especially since others cannot distinguish.

The first reason is what we say. We talk about how important it is to sustain coalitions. We fought for a “seat at the table.” It would be wrong for us to be any less than wholeheartedly welcoming to those who look like us. We have to give them space too. We would be hypocrites otherwise. If we do not yield, we will be shoved aside. There is room for all, or so we ourselves proclaim.

The second reason is strategic. There are more of them than there are of us. They keep coming. The majority of Asian Americans are foreign-born, not native born. Immigration patterns ensure that this demographic balance of power will favor the former over the latter, at least for our lifetimes. If we do not win them over, or ally with them, they will overtake us numerically and render us irrelevant politically.

If Asian Americans want the concept of “Asian American” to last another generation, we must figure out how to engage with all who belong to an artificial, fragile category. The failure of the movement will be “on us,” to use the vernacular we must speak.

We must come together.






You Might Like:


Comments:

(@George)

这位吴教授在去年的华人大会演讲也曾令我感动,也许这篇在他看来华人不会去读的文章里才露出他的本色:此人对我们第一代华裔怎么如此的怨毒?我们这些还算受过良好的教育,遵纪守法,怎么在他眼中都是些抠鼻孔插队还几乎吃狗肉的令人厌恶的一群人?有些华裔名人揭开了画皮还真是没法看.

(@Brad)

感觉 百人会 与 80-20 一样, 日益被边缘化, 失去影响。原因何在?

二者有一共同点: 均缺乏草根基础, 没找准着力点。

也许他们真没实力, 真没影响, 所以就不接或不敢挑担子? 但是他们要忽悠公众捐款。

(@Alex)

去年他们开华人大会的时候,吴专门发表一篇文章,作为大会的经典学习文件。 很多人拜读了那篇经典之作,读了半天也不知所云。 于是有好事者将其翻译成中文。 看了中文版后还是一头雾水。 我硬着头皮读了十几遍,终于读懂了: 华人维权一定要跟着黑人走,不要瞎逞能。  后来他的若干篇文章越来越清楚了。 原来他打心眼里根本就看不起中国人。 鉴定完毕。

(@Karl)

不是看不起华人,是害怕华人。虽然嘴上说的是华人自己觉得比别人厉害,他骨子里也这么想。一旦华人都进来了,他的优势就没有了。

(@Alex)

好奇,难道吴很香吗? 他究竟为提升在美国的中国人的地位做过什么贡献?

我觉得吴为提升他自己的地位做出了很大的奉献。

(@Kelly)

如果我有误会深表歉意!只是希望有更多像群主一样诚心实意踏实为华人利益服务的实干者,而不是那些自恨虚伪把华人当垫背往上攀的政客。这些政客我们应该不留情面揭露不被其出卖,而不是抱着所谓华人党的愿望是非不分看错了人捧错了脚。

(@SZ)

忍不住,再出来接砖:此吴教授的东西好像在不少微信群和华人网站流传,看看就算了,不能当真。本群群主也发过,我看了几遍没有看出来他要说什么,讨教过群主。我们自己鉴定一下。个人感觉是不值得信赖和关注。另外,此文晦涩隐晦,不知所云,是学院左派惯用手法,也是本人最厌恶的手段:晦涩的语言,玩儿的是文字游戏,不是说道理。说的道理不对也就算了,还以private一词作标题出来博眼球,实在不算decent。以上是我个人看法,拍砖随意。另外,本人上微信,但和左派战斗的主要战场显然是tweeter。来美17年,从简历看显然比吴教授浅,应该算他说的New Arrivals? 不过他的意思我终于明白了,一笑而过。我们不要迷信教授的头衔,谋生手段而已。我迷信做事的人,不相信讲话的。借群主宝地,胡言乱语,见谅。

(@brave heart)

我已经把文章转发给百人会的创会会长. 希望听听他的意见. 因为Frank是他们一组人推荐和挑选出来的. Frank Wu 在梁彼得被定罪后重新找律师的过程中帮忙出力. 所以当微信群一片叫嚣骂他时我保持沉默.

(@SZ)

人无完人,大学教授们普遍离生活太远,我们知道他有局限。

(@Jerry)

其實很多人都還未知道或不明白百人會創立非與華人維權有關,但百人會的確在中美兩國關係上出了很大力!

個人覺得有點像口水戰。在美的中國人和美國華人之間的口水戰。

(@Tony)

百人会严重脫离草根,Frank Wu 发过几篇文章,都显然想影响近年来草根运动方向,可惜非常一厢情愿,直至此篇充满Frustrations, even angers and attacks 言语所谓私人话文章,非常不妥,为什么不采取直接沟通,而要运用主流媒体.

我今天还收到S B WU的邮件,其实百人会在A A上试图转向,但他们显然放不下架子,特别是有要摘桃的愿望,如何担当起华人领袖的大任?替他们着急.

(@SZ)

吴教授太着急了,感觉又不了解New Arrivals, 结果惹怒了我们这样的old New Arrivals。

(@Robin)

吴教授以后最好别以主人的姿态和口吻随便说“我们……”,因为没有代表权.










Comments