2013 (154)
2015 (47)
2016 (67)
2017 (115)
2018 (85)
2019 (93)
2020 (173)
2021 (141)
2022 (166)
2023 (174)
美國亞裔教育聯盟(AACE)主席趙宇空在不太懂美國名牌大學的錄取原則時，就指控名校歧視，並且相當不妥地用自己兒子做為例證。他的下文在文學城曾經引來不少留言，我還曾寫過一篇文章回應他們申訴耶魯歧視的事情。我曾經是相當反對平權法案的人士，當時抗議加州SCA5時文學城專欄就用過我的文章，但是這次大選讓我看到川粉們極端的自私自利行為，使我的立場有些鬆動，雖然仍然反對美國平權對亞裔的歧視。然而，我不可想像毫無社會關懷心的人士的後代大量入讀哈佛耶魯後，美國是否會變成像中國當今那樣的社會達爾文主義橫行的社會，更是覺得美國應該適當照顧那些願意服務美國非洲裔聚集的內城的年輕人讀醫學院。
趙宇空文章：
趙宇空：我為什麽鼓勵孩子申訴藤校？
http://www.wenxuecity.com/blog/201610/63216/1411398.html
文學城網友（我和其他兩位）留言：
雅美之途 發表評論於 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 發表評論於 2016-10-12 07:14:04
1）你兒子的學校，甚至你兒子的學區，今年有被這兩所藤校錄取的嗎？2）你能指出哪位被該兩所藤校錄取的學生，因為歧視的原因取代了你兒子“本來應該被錄取的位置“？
3）同樣獲得國家優秀學生獎學金其它七千個學生，是否都被排名前二十的學校錄取？
4）你們學區另外100 名被前二十學校錄取的同學中亞裔被歧視了嗎？
5）有任何一個有權威的人士認證：你兒子符合這兩所藤校的錄取標準嗎？
答案：
1）你兒子的學區沒有人被這兩所學校錄取。所謂雞頭在差區更容易上藤的秘訣，沒有成功。你兒子沒有因此入藤校，你兒子的印度裔同學也沒占到便宜。況且印度同學居然沒有同時報冤，去教育部請願，看樣子人家沒覺得被歧視啊？
2）你無法列出任何學生取代你兒子的證據。
3）不是。其中2500 個獎是學校發的，幾乎都不是前二十的學校。兩所藤校也不發。
4）？
5）沒有。This is a lottery. 如果你不能證明兒子夠格，如何能證明藤校歧視你兒子？Blum 先生的律師不會接你兒子的案子。
你這個案子的證據也太弱了。等著被回絕吧。中國科技大學培養出來的學生，不能在上述五個問題都沒搞清楚或者是減分答案的情況下，就拉大旗做虎皮吧？Cal 今年錄取了數千亞裔。Cal 如果沒有錄取你兒子，是不是和兩個藤校同罪呀？證明歧視，最關鍵的一條是被告（即錄取官）蓄意（intentionally）歧視原告（你兒子），如果是由法庭判決的話。你不可能有這兩所藤校錄取官蓄意歧視你兒子的證據。至於你處處強調的前二十學校都沒錄取一證據，其實說明二藤校不錄取是情有可原的。 Cal都不錄，哥大能錄嗎？邏輯啊！
我這是實話實說。我知道的例子，一個華裔學生，PSAT 考砸了，NMSF 的資格都沒拿到。但以前參加數學競賽的成績不錯，曾經數次到 MIT 參加數學比賽，雖然 SAT 成績也沒到 2300，一樣 EA MIT 成功；後 RD P 成功。一個連 NMSF 資格都沒有的申請人被 MIT 錄取，能否證明 MIT 歧視像你兒子這種 NMS 獲得者？不能。其一，PSAT 偶然性很高；其二，即使是 NMS 獎金獲得者，不過是兩次標準考試沒出漏子而已，並不是什麽一定能被前二十學校錄取的板上定釘子的護身符。
另一個是八年級才來美國的華裔學生，英文程度不佳，但活動能力超群。即使 SAT 僅僅 2120，GPA 3.8，仍然 EA Duke 成功，讓我們為他驕傲。如果僅看 SAT 和 GPA，這位同學可能不如你兒子的成績亮眼（假設你兒子 SAT 高於 2120），他被錄取，你兒子沒有被錄取，能說明 Duke 歧視亞裔嗎？不能。
即使是NMS獎，你所謂七千人得主都是在當年錄取結果分曉之後才確定的。你居然把這個獎作為被藤校歧視的證據，屬於自欺欺人。誠實點兒，僅列一個NMSF並不丟人。
如果你兒子申請了前二十名大學中的八所以上，沒有一個大學伸出橄欖枝，絕大多數的可能是他本身條件不夠格，而不是歧視。
再者，瓜田李下，你身為主席，即使你兒子被歧視，為避嫌，也應該 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 發表評論於 2016-10-12 09:44:19:
我非常認真地把文章讀了2-3遍，有幾點想法：
1）如果隻是作為一般性的呼籲，籠統點沒有問題。但要起訴兩所特定的學校，你必須給出針對這兩所學校的具體事例和證據，不能籠統。呼籲大人不能欺負小孩沒錯，但不能僅憑這麽個理念就指責你鄰居家大人欺負你兒子。
2）同樣文章沒有給出這兩所學校歧視令郎的具體例證。比如，這兩所學校是否錄取了某個成績等各方麵不如令郎的學生，如果有，是什麽族裔的？
3）你在National Merit上花費了大量的筆墨，將之作為主要證據。National Merit翻譯成中文很好聽“國家優秀學生獎學金”，但實際上僅僅是一家公司或基金會，主要依據是一次PSAT考試。假如我是大學，我為什麽要讓另一家機構來替我作決定，我為何要以一次PSAT的成績為錄取依據？
4）關鍵部分語焉不詳。比如“他在其高中的科學奧林匹克、辯論隊以及科學知識競賽等學生組織中擔任主席或隊長等職務。” 他擔任所有這些團體的主席，隊長，還是部分？這些團體取得了什麽樣的成績，他的貢獻是什麽？要知道，參加，甚至組建一個團體並不說明問題。如果他能證明在學生社團建設方麵達到你的水平，或者一半的水平，那倒是很了不起的領導才能。還有，你說“他的寫作十分優秀，常常在校報寫稿。” 這隻說明經常投稿，並不說明寫作優秀。
5）有趣的是，你是選擇性語焉不詳，有些部分很具體，比如“他作為主要骨幹參與的FTC機器人團隊曾兩次打入了世界級競賽。” 一句話，把他的role （主要骨幹），項目名稱（FTC機器人），取得成績（兩次打入了世界級競賽），交待得清清楚楚。
6）聽說你在中國出版了一本關於申請美國名校的書，特別強調美國名校招生不以分數為唯一根據，重視課外活動，並教人如何包裝課外活動。說實話，我對此是很鄙視的，因為這類書，以及新東方之類的機構，嚴重幹擾了正常的招生過程。說白了，是在指導人如何作弊：呈現一個虛假的自己，試圖fool招生官。這也讓我疑惑，令郎的課外活動是他本人的興趣，還是在你指導下，製造出來的？特別是，他怎麽會擔任如此多社團的主席/隊長，覆蓋麵又如此之廣，寫作，辯論，科學競賽？
7）你起訴的哈佛，哥大，亞裔已經達到了22% 和 28%。 假如再高的話，以後誰為西裔和黑裔社區服務？中國為了培養民族幹部，設立了專門的民族學院，普通大學也有民族班，難道美國就不需要培養特定的民族工作人員？
我的回應博文：
申訴耶魯歧視是選錯了學校和證人
You said:
"這本來也不deserve my response, 之前就說了 ： 廢除一條法令，就是回到該法令之前的狀態，這是常規邏輯。好了，這真的是最後一次，你盡可以另找課堂教人如何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 "廢除一條法令，就是回到該法令之前的狀態", 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 廢除一條法令，就是回到該法令之前的狀態 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 我看到川粉們極端的自私自利行為 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”聖誕周末 12人被槍殺40多人傷. Can you let me know, you will let your son or daughter, after graduate from Ivy schools, to work in the “血腥”聖誕周末芝加哥 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 以夷製夷 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
這本來也不deserve my response, 之前就說了 ： 廢除一條法令，就是回到該法令之前的狀態，這是常規邏輯。好了，這真的是最後一次，你盡可以另找課堂教人如何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 "某些人認為廢除了AA，就會按分數錄取". 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 "廢除AA，並不等於就能象某些人想像的按分數錄取，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 "廢除一條法令，就是回到該法令之前的狀態", 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 "廢除AA，並不等於就能象某些人想像的按分數錄取，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 "廢除一條法令，就是回到該法令之前的狀態", 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。而且個人認為，亞裔以5%的人口比例，能在藤校占到20%的份額，說明藤校已經在AA的框架下，考慮了亞裔學業相對優秀的現實，即使有不合理處，也沒有到歧視的程度。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
目前亞裔占長春藤20%左右，是趙主席認為要提到30%， 所以應該趙主席闡述他將20%提到30%的理由。我隻是說他目前給出的說法“讓我們的孩子不必這樣辛苦” 很荒唐，不能成為理由。
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 "你告訴我: 亞裔該吃多少? 憑啥要吃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 "你首先認可了我們生活在一個"free market " 的資本主義社會" and "Run 私立大學也是一個business." By the way, the correct phrasing is "Running 私立大學也是一個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?
你要想問czhz亞裔入學比例多少合適? 我隻想問你: 4個白人, 3個黑人, 2個老墨, 1個亞裔, 同時麵對這塊教育的蛋糕. 你告訴我: 亞裔該吃多少? 憑啥要吃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 "這些長青籘大學是那些校友們捐獻的，他們當然有絕對權利決定應該錄取誰？" 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 "關於第2個，你問錯人了，應該讓那些認為“廢除AA，就能按分數錄取” 的人提供根據", 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.
關於第2個，你問錯人了，應該讓那些認為“廢除AA，就能按分數錄取” 的人提供根據，為什麽“廢除AA，就能按分數錄取”？因為按常規，廢除AA，就是回到AA之前，而AA之前，可不是按照你亞裔的分數錄取的。
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）你起訴的哈佛，哥大，亞裔已經達到了22% 和 28%。 假如再高的話，以後誰為西裔和黑裔社區服務？中國為了培養民族幹部，設立了專門的民族學院，普通大學也有民族班，難道美國就不需要培養特定的民族工作人員？"
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 趙宇空 is right to demand a piece of the pie by all means possible, suing the schools included.