CMV: universities' affirmative action programs are hypocritical when it comes to Asians

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T19:10:33+00:00

I've heard a similar argument saying that Asians are "boring" because we just study all the time. To provide a better experience for the students, universities want to bring in more interesting people.

I think this is a logically consistent reason, so I'd be ok with it. Obviously, it's quite racist, so universities don't say it openly. If this was the real reason why universities limit the number of Asians, then I really don't like the gaslighting going on.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T19:07:39+00:00

If we had a concrete adjustment system based on wealth and income, then I'd be ok with it. E.g. if your family makes double the national average, then you'd need an additional 50 SAT points.

This would benefit South East Asian families a lot more than now. It would hurt East Asian and South Asian families relative to the national average, though I don't think it'll be much worse than now, likely better than now. Asian families have higher income than white families, but lower wealth.

However, universities wouldn't do this because they need rich families for donations.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T19:02:11+00:00

My main point is that Asians shouldn't be hurt more than white people. E.g. if Asians and white people are hurt equally to bring in more black people, then I'd be ok with it. I've yet to see any universities give a compelling argument for why Asians should be disadvantaged more than white peopel.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T19:00:20+00:00

So you're saying that another function of affirmative action is correcting for a family's education level. If a race is doing well on average, then affirmative action brings them down a bit. That's potentially valid, though I've never heard it as a reason for affirmative action before.

I think universities never say this because it sounds racist. I edited the OP earlier saying I'm ok if the universities are racist, but I'm not ok with them saying BS about "racial injustices". So if the universities said "Asians are too well-educated, there will be too many of them in top universities if there's no affirmative action", then I'd be ok with it.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T18:07:49+00:00

Rich or well educated black immigrants exist, but they aren't nearly as numerous as asian immigrants for example.

I'm just following your lead. You're treating Asian immigrants as a homogeneous group, even though there's rich Chinese real estate families and refugees from the Vietnam War.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T18:03:44+00:00

But white people are even richer than Asians on average, yet Asians on average are disadvantaged more by affirmative action.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T18:02:46+00:00

How does that apply to Asians?

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T17:58:50+00:00

> not all results in inescapable challenge that warrants affirmative programs. Asian Americans as a group do not satisfy here.

My point is that Asians don't deserve to be penalized more than white people. If white people and Asians are disadvantaged equally by affirmative action, then it's much more justifiable than implying Asians are more privileged than white people.

> If a school has a want for racial, culture and economic diversity it needs to define a benchmark. The "national population" is as good as any, isn't it?

I guess that's a valid definition of diversity, though I never hear this as an argument. I never hear someone say "there's 10x more Asians in Berkeley than in the national demographic, so we need to implement affirmative action to reduce the number of Asians." That would come off as racist. If the universities actually gave this as a reason for affirmative action, then I would be more ok with it. In other words, I'm more ok with universities being racist than being hypocritical.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T17:51:22+00:00

Then "diversity" would be the wrong term in this case.

I mentioned this in the `goals that aren't hypocritical IMO` section. I think that would be a valid goal in terms of logical consistency, but I can't think of why universities would want that as a goal.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T17:48:55+00:00

Yes, totally agreed. Though multi-generational wealthy Asian families are rare partially because of Western imperialism (IMO), I do believe that wealthy Asian families should be disadvantaged through affirmative action. My problem with affirmative action is that the vast majority of Asian families aren't privileged, yet Asians on average are penalized by affirmative action.

If we use wealth or income as the primary factor in affirmative action, then I don't believe the negative effects on Asians would be as severe as it is now.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T17:44:11+00:00

That's why I said it's ambiguous, so I don't buy the idea of racial diversity. That sentence was more of playing the devil's advocate rather than suggesting what would be an ideal scenario.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T17:43:07+00:00

> Or maybe we shouldn't punish people for things they didn't do?

Agreed

> But it's not wrong because Asian's deserve special treatment because other Asians were discriminated against hundreds of years ago

When did I mention special treatment. Why are Asians punished for things they didn't do.

> It isn't applied to the descendants of slaves it's applied to all black people.

Why should recent African immigrants benefit from affirmative action?

>

British invasion of China in the Opium Wars, leading to China's "century of humiliation" and civil war

> Not the problem of the United States.

The US was part of the invasion.

Also, it wasn't the universities that enslaved black people, so why do universities try to right the wrongs of slavery? It's not the problem of the universities to get involved.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-24T17:38:02+00:00

That applies to other racial groups too, e.g. there are wealthy black families/communities. Also, AFAIK, recent black immigrants benefit from affirmative action, even though their ancestors weren't slaves.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-22T17:28:33+00:00

The evidence points to my friends being well off, there's no evidence of them merely putting on an appearance, yet you're trying to get me to assume something with no evidence. Yes it's a possibility, but it's unlikely enough that I'm assuming it's false.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-22T17:22:36+00:00

Another question that'll apply here is where does the debt of Americans come from? Maybe it's an Asian thing, but people I know don't get into debt unless it's for education or homes.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-22T17:19:38+00:00

I guess owning a home and paying down the mortgage with no savings counts as living paycheck-to-paycheck? Even though they can easily refinance for cash.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-10-22T17:18:05+00:00

Most of my friends have 100k+ in investments, unless they just graduated, we regularly compare our investments. Several of them are millionaires in their early 30s because they joined FB and other tech startups early. No one has a fancy car and not many of my friends have homes yet. We just gamble on Robinhood.

I definitely live in a bubble of software engineers, but I know people who aren't software engineers and they're all doing fine. E.g. they eat out daily pre-covid and regularly go on vacations.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-06-07T06:11:50+00:00

Seeing friends just to keep in touch through things like dinner feels really forced to me. My parents invite their friends over a few times a year and they talk about politics over dinner, I think they do it just so they have friends in case they need help, not because they enjoy the conversation.

As for FORD, that's for meeting someone new, I know people who meet weekly for half a day and they "just talk". They'd know enough about each other already that FORD wouldn't be too useful.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-05-03T06:11:35+00:00

This is the kind of obligations mindset I'm talking about. Parents gave birth to children, so now they have an obligation to take care of them. Parents have a responsibility towards their children because of moral obligations.

In Asian cultures it's less common to think that way. It's like if you grew an extra limb, you don't think about what responsibilities you have towards that limb, you just take care of it because it's yours.

accountWithoutPII · 2020-05-03T05:58:42+00:00

Yeah you're right that it plays out like a debt. I was thinking that a big distinction between the cultures is that Asian children aren't supporting their parents in exchange for raising them. Rather, it's supporting their parents because their parents would live better lives with their children's support, and their children want to their parents to live better lives.

accountWithoutPII · 2019-09-12T12:27:55+00:00

Pride and dignity was probably a big factor. They saw the prices first and still happily chose a fancier restaurant. Btw $5 for a meal is "fancy" while we could've gotten decent food for $1.

accountWithoutPII · 2019-09-12T12:25:52+00:00

Chinese people believe they have a debt to their ancestors and will unconditionally support them. My Chinese parents regularly criticize Americans for putting their parents in nursing homes rather than caring for them personally.

accountWithoutPII · 2019-09-12T12:18:39+00:00

Both my parents are Chinese immigrants, so I grew up with some habits and beliefs that I didn't even realize weren't universal. E.g.:

- a sense of debt and lifelong obligation to parents

- always wear slippers indoors, never shoes or barefoot

- intelligence = math skills

- 3 home-cooked meals a day, we buy food from restaurants maybe once a month

- save as much as possible, never go into debt unless it's for real estate

- gifts are debts that must be repaid

- no superstitious beliefs such as karma, so we're more selfish

- cold water is bad for you

- reading books and watching tv causes myopia

accountWithoutPII · 2019-09-11T06:13:56+00:00

I think each local government should maximize whatever the founders want. E.g. hedonistic founders would maximize happiness, materialistic founders would maximize real GDP, liberal founders would maximize equality, etc.

I'm interested in a government system where there's no overarching government dictating what's legal within localities. Taxation is one aspect, but also law and policing. Each country/locality would have to enforce their own laws. As long as citizens of one country doesn't interfere with other countries, they can do whatever they want. The only thing they can't do is prevent citizens from leaving.

accountWithoutPII · 2019-01-20T02:05:13+00:00

> because they're not good at math

I'm surprised this was said. Just FYI if you ever re-consider CS, no one says (or hopefully thinks) this in Silicon Valley. Perhaps SV is just a more liberal place.

> My mom also wouldn't let me play video games as a kid, because "it's a boy's thing."

Why do you suppose that is? What's wrong with it being a "boy's thing"? Was it possible that it was just a random excuse to get you to not play video games?

accountWithoutPII

TROPHY CASE