狹義的Minority 應該是一個small racial group. 怪了,Hispanics and African A 是minority? Chinese at 4% 不是minority, 我們是rare population. So we don't have the halo of minority, and we are rare. 在這两大前提之下 Admission top x% 對華人是不 利的; 職場的AA(jessie J's version) 對華人也是不利的。 華人有聰明才智,勤奮努力,不必靠保護傘也可以成功,至於成功定義是10,20,30,50,100万年收入,自己填了。猶太人的social network 和group influence 像一張無形的大網,ㄧ環叩ㄧ環, 無遠弗屆,沒有law suit, 沒有big noise (除hollow cost). 在ㄧ機構裡不表明, 但知道同事中誰是猶太人, 他們不說以色列話,即使会講,全心認同美國(至少表面上作到了) 也許有借鏡的地方。
Jeb Tries to Explain Away "Anchor Babies" Remark: "Frankly, It’s More Related to Asian People": http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/24/jeb_bush_explains_anchor_babies_remark_frankly_it_s_more_related_to_asian.html
Where we like it or not, Colleges have goal to reach certain degree of diversity (race, gender and etc). Use race as a factor shold be the last resort. We all agree with that.
The problem is that Blum tries to completely ban the race as a factor. If he successes, the colleges might have to use other drastic measures, such as top x, to reach its goal of diversity. Is that what we want?