人家告的是哈佛的种族歧视。亚裔子女在美国入学是否受到歧视,是否被伤害,在美国这基本是共识。连支持AA的哈佛黑人法律教授在公开辩论中都承认这点。好像反对告的同学并不否定存在歧视,所以我不得不推论出那些同学觉得自己或别人的黄皮肤娃因为肤色被歧视是可以容忍和接受的。这种甘愿被歧视的心理俺不大能理解。。。
反派同学提的亚裔父母及孩子的一些缺点俺基本同意,俺曾长期在这里批判亚裔父母的教育方式。但因为咱族群有这些缺点,咱所有的娃就该被歧视了?认同这点的同学不妨和美国黑人朋友去探讨。。。
亚裔父母养娃的一大问题就是把自己和文化中的懦弱奴性也不经意的传给了娃,恐怕也是亚裔孩子缺领导力的原因之一。温良恭俭让(换言之也是懦弱的借口)在美国是被人看不起的,当不了领导的,只有被踩被牺牲的份。没人会愿意追随一事当前,先出卖自己人出让自己“利益”的人。咱这回总算有部分人不肯再温良恭俭让下去了,站出来反歧视告哈佛了,可一大部分同学仍然觉得还要继续温良恭俭让。这是我对双方争论焦点的看法。
不少同学说亚裔在哈佛的比例已经是人口的N倍了。我想这也是没办法的吧?谁让美国移民局只接受亚洲高智商技术移民呢,这些人的子女自然也是高智商的,难道子女就该为此受歧视?
咱也觉得咱亚裔养的孩子太单调太趋同。可这么多年看娃的小白聪明同学,家里学业和课外活动上推得确实不如亚裔狠,结果就比较五花八门(包括用毒品的),那些孩子多数本来也不想上藤。他们的藤娃相当部分也像老中那样推,只不过体育和领导力上的力气比老中们多些就是了。你说咱都该像大部分白人那样学,让孩子不求上进?
话说回来,白人占着社会资源,确实不需要像亚裔那样推学业。比如咱球场上就若干次听到老白间的对话,他们娃大学毕业后找不到工作,就去父母或父母朋友的公司。多少小中家里有这些connection?
在Fisher对德州大学的案子里,大法官曾这样不屑的问德州大学律师:
"I thought that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, but you make a very different argument that I don't think I've ever seen before. The top 10 percent plan admits lots of Hispanics and a fair number of African Americans. But you say, 'well, it's -- it's faulty, because it doesn't admit enough African Americans and Hispanics who come from privileged backgrounds.' And you specifically have the example of the child of successful [minority] professionals in Dallas. Now, that's your argument?
If you have an applicant whose parents are -- let's say one of them is a partner in your law firm in Texas, another one is a corporate lawyer. They have income that puts them in the top 1 percent of earners in the country, and the parents both have graduate degrees. They deserve a leg-up against, let's say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income?"
俺不禁也要问一问那些反对告的同学,你们认为,名校这种牺牲普通家庭出身的黄白孩子而去照顾富有黑墨家庭子弟的做法是道德的吗?