" Amici are greatly distressed by and find offensive the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Fifth Circuit”) upholding the race-based admission program at the University of Texas at Austin (“UT” or the “University”). Contrary to that court’s depic- tion of the issue as “white” versus “minority,” in fact, it is Asian American students, the members of a his- torically oppressed minority, who comprise the group most harmed by the program. The evidence and common sense demonstrate that the UT admission program at issue is nothing other than forbidden racial balancing or, even worse, potentially an effort by academic and political elites to curry favor with a powerful voting bloc. Under the Texas Ten Percent Plan, UT already had more His- panic American students enrolled than Asian Ameri- can students, but under the plan being challenged in this case, UT insisted on giving preferences to His- panic applicants, while disfavoring Asian American applicants, demonstrating that the University was not striving for “diversity” but racial balance. The present discrimination against individuals of Asian descent in UT admissions is particularly troubling, in light of the long history of discrimina- tion against Asian Americans, especially in educa- tion. See, e.g., Joyce Kuo, Excluded, Segregated and For- gotten: A Historical View of the Discrimination of Chinese Americans in Public Schools, 5 Asian L. J. 181, 207-208 (May 1998)."
" It is disheartening to see the same type of dis- criminatory program at UT today, where Asian Americans are still being classified by race and con-sidered not as valuable as other Americans because of their race"
"The recitation of Respondents and their amici of a noble purpose behind the UT program should be giv- en no weight. State officials have always argued that their classification of individuals by race, and discriminatory programs, were justified by im- portant governmental purposes, and even the most racist programs have found support with “experts,” including ivory tower academics and even military leaders. Yet, our country’s history has always, in the end, demonstrated that classification and discrimi- nation by race was a mistake. In case after case, the single historical truth that emerges is that the rights of Asian Americans— and of all Americans—have been vindicated only by strict application of the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of individual rights. That same rule is no less valid today, and it directly applies to the situa- tion in Texas."
"For all of these reasons, the Court should find the UT admission program to be unconstitutional. The Court should also revisit and overrule its holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), to make clear that outside of narrowly tailored programs that provide remedies to specific and proven victims of race-based discrimination, race should not be used in college admissions or any other setting."
@赵宇空 仔细去读读Edward Blum在Fisher案中提出的解决方案是什么吧！Don't just based on wishful thinking
谈云识天气
Top 10% automatic admission. That would be a great system for Chinese concentrated areas like California
谈云识天气
What percentage will Harvard do? Top half percent? This kind of system benefit whites the most, limits blacks, increase Asian-to-Asian competition because the way how each population spreads.
谈云识天气
Edward Blum and his Fisher has been there long before he even had a thought on Chinese. @赵宇空 you are just a mean to a goal he has long held. And you don't even know it.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 Top 10% is what University of Texas proposed and implemented based on my understanding.
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 Do you this system benefits or hurts Chinese?
谈云识天气
Think
谈云识天气
Don't just listen to the political rhetoric! Think about the actual on the ground impact of any policy change before you embrace it!
谈云识天气
You care, that's nice, but it's not enough! You need to know policy actually works on the ground.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 we filed complaint against Harvard because we care about our children and Asian American children. About whom do you care? Democratic agenda?
赵宇空
Anything have you done to advance to cause for Asian Americans? Or play as a mean as liberal?
谈云识天气
帮倒忙也是帮忙？
谈云识天气
Don't we have enough ideologically driven Chinese who don't know a thing about how their idea policy actually works on the ground?!
赵宇空
I have observed and personally talked with many families whose children were unfairly discriminated by Ivy Leagues Schools. Our act stems from conscience and courage, not from ideology. Our actions are aimed to protect our children's civil rights, not any party's policies. Period!
谈云识天气
Don't just rely on emotion. Also use you brain! Will plans like top 10 or half percent actually benefit Chinese kids given how we spread?!
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 Top 10% was proposed by U of Texas, the liberal side.
谈云识天气
Don't give me explanation of yourself. I don't care! I care about how the policy you advocate will benefit our kids.
@谈云识天气 please read our complaint online AsianAmericanCoalition.org. Sorry I have no time to explain to you in details.
谈云识天气
@T Dai Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter, but she still managed to produce a few zingers of her own in her sparse four-page opinion. Most notably, she pooh-poohed the idea that the two alternatives to affirmative action suggested by Fisher and her lawyers – the school’s Top Ten Percent Plan, which offers automatic admission to any Texas high school student in the top ten percent of her class, and the review of applications without regard to race: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/finally-the-fisher-decision-in-plain-english/
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 Shame on you! You don't even know the actual position of Edward Blum in his Fisher case, and yet you support him, risk our kids!
解滨
Risk our kids? How?
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 请不要用这样尚心病狂的语言。自重一些。
Henry Yang
@谈云识天气 再说一遍，top 10%是德州议会早就批准的正在执行的方案，不是Blum提的
谈云识天气
If top half percent of each high school will go to Harvard, will there be more Chinese kids in Harvard or less? Do we cover 20% of the U.S. high schools?
谈云识天气
@Henry Yang read for you argue
谈云识天气
Before
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 have you read either Blum or our complaint against Harvard. Is any place you read a recommendation of top percentage by either of us? It is you who are ignorant!
谈云识天气
@Henry Yang read this: Most notably, she pooh-poohed the idea that the two alternatives to affirmative action suggested by Fisher and her lawyers – the school’s Top Ten Percent Plan, which offers automatic admission to any Texas high school student in the top ten percent of her class, and the review of applications without regard to race: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/finally-the-fisher-decision-in-plain-english/
Henry Yang
@谈云识天气 你不读判决书原文么？
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 You haven't proved Harvard case yet, so you don't get to propose any alternative. But Edward Blum already proposed alternative in the Fisher case. Did you wish him win the Fisher case?!
谈云识天气
@Henry Yang of course I did. Any good lawyer will tell you lawsuit is a unpredictable thing. Sometime you win the case, but you lose in reality.
Henry Yang
@谈云识天气 德州top 10%到底是不是Blum提的啊？
谈云识天气
@Henry Yang Doesn't matter who first invented. The hard fact is that Edward Blum is pushing it in the Fisher case.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 what we are going to propose will be race neutral, if you accurately read my early posting in this group.
Henry Yang
@谈云识天气 top 10%都在那了怎么push啊？
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 if you find an actual plan that benefits our kids, I will support you. Based on the Fisher case, Edward Blum's position is not helping us. It's that simple.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 you had a totally wrong understanding of our position. From the start, we spoke of Asian American interests, never a supporter of anybody else. We supported Blum in Harvard case because it aligned with Asian American interest. We will support a racially blind solution for Fisher case, not top10%, regardless who proposed it!
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 top x percent that may not be your intention, but that may well be the outcome of Blum wins his Fisher case. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
谈云识天气
If
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 sorry. We have enough wisdoms in our organizing committee, will not listen to non-constructive suggestions.
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 yeah, you go with your committee. My audience is the silence majority who think and have actual kids on the line.
Of course I'm against race BASED admission. Top x percent will effectively become a race BASED policy simply because the way how minority populations actually spread.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 regardless your intention, please do not scare off parents who are willing to stand up to protect their civil rights. I view a top percentage program as a liberal's scheme to disguise their racial consideration intention, just like what Professor Sander found with University of California system. Nevertheless, though we do not support it, it is actually less evil than the current practice of racially based admissions in Ivy Leagues because UC systems take top10% and remaining based on merit. The reality is: top Asian American kids go to top UC schools. Those who are not 10% still can be admitted using merit based approaches. The fact that Asian Americans have higher admission rate in UC's top universities than Ivy Leagues is a strong proof. Let's focus on eliminating racial consideration in college admissions. That's our goal!
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 Great! You're against top x percent plan!! We are making progress here.Can you stop your ally Edward Blum from proposing it? You know, make an actual difference here? Come up with a plan that will actually works, then I'm with you.
@T Dai it's not about what you want, it's about what you actually will get. I have real kids here.
陳年酒🍷
For the record, UC take 4 percent, and only to one of the 10 UC campus, UC, no necessary UCB or UCLA
谈云识天气
Politics is like 太极拳。Nothing is as straight forward. You need to think about end game and pick of the lesser of two evils.
谈云识天气
@圭 Top x percent plan is reasonable for state schools given their mission. But it's not suitable for elite schools, not even elite state schools.
谈云识天气
I've read all the court filings I can find. I've found out Blum is pushing for the top x percent during the court hearing of the Fisher case by doing research. As supporters, why didn't you find it before me? Where are you due diligence research?!
谈云识天气
I've followed the conservative attacks on school admission since 1990s. They were long at it. I'm all for as many allies as you can find. But aren't you supposed to check where the bus is going before you get on the bus?!
T Dai
@谈云识天气 tell us the current lawsuit against Harvard and UNC? Is there a top x% plan or something else?
谈云识天气
@T Dai the lawsuit has gone that far yet. You do understand how lawsuit work, right? Given Edward Blum is the driving force behind the Harvard case, I did more research on him, and on his Fisher case.
谈云识天气
Hasn't
谈云识天气
I would actually prefer @赵宇空 's case go first on its own because it mostly want more information from Harvard, has no chance of overturn it. The Chinese community does have lots of questions, and Harvard needs to answer them. But because of Blum's Harvard case, 赵''s case bounced right back. Blum is out to change Harvard for his own purpose. I want to protect my 20% with the hope to increase it. But I'm not willing risk my 20% on some top x percent plan.
Henry Yang
@谈云识天气 even the Supreme Court has no authority to ask Harvard to implement top x plan, let alone Harvard
Henry Yang
And Harvard won't be so stupid to implement a 0.5% plan, which would make it a third tier school instantaneously
谈云识天气
@Henry Yang you keep laughing, but go to the side.
王耀明
@谈云识天气 看了你的发言很生气。希望你在发言前，尽可能先了解议题，再讲话，不要信口开河。无论是AACE还是Blum，我们只是对大学入学的不合理挑战？有什么错？至于用什么方式来解决，这是另一个课题，不需要我们来提出，因为这是政府和政策制定机构来研究，我们充其量只是发表一些意见。至于你说的，Don't Risk our kids. Honestly I do get it. I totally disagree with you, because our kids are already in the risk to be cheat equally. 如果我们不站出来，我们才是真的put our kids in the risk. 另外，我们的要求从来没有强调要额外照顾，只是要求不耍区别对待。如果能做到这一点，我们就满意了。我们的下一代就benefit 了。 对不起，先看懂云️，再来谈天气。
@王耀明 I totally agree "先看懂云️，再来谈天气"。That could be my slogan! 你得先搞懂 this is America, not China. “至于用什么方式来解决，这是另一个课题，不需要我们来提出，因为这是政府和政策制定机构来研究，我们充其量只是发表一些意见。” That's purely 中国臣民的想法。US courts get to make real decisions that impact real life. We need to define a solution that actually benefits our kids, not to allow others to define a solution to suit their agenda. You know, this democracy business is for real which means we have more responsibilities to ourselves than you are used to.
For people who are actually interested in the impact of Supreme Court on higher education admission policy, here is a good link on its history: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/30/supreme-court-will-once-again-consider-affirmative-action-college-admissions, particularly its sidebar which lists the precedent setting cases. The U.S. legal system belongs to Anglo-Saxon Common Law system whose many details are actually driven by case law.
An interesting note: the current Harvard admission policy is explicitly modeled after the Supreme Court's decision on Grutter v. Bollinger. Edward Blum recruited the Fisher case in the hope that the new case will allow the more conservative Supreme Court to move the line further to the right, basically overturn the precedent set by Grutter v. Bollinger.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 hope you do not have a mission deliver Harvard's propaganda. When NPR reporter said same thing on behalf of Harvard during our news conference, I challenged Harvard to open its admissions books if they claim their admissions practices are legal and not discriminatory against Asian Americans. So far, Harvard is not brave enough to respond to my challenge.
赵宇空
The amazingly same fixed admission rates for Asian Americans in Harvard and other Ivy Leagues over the last twenty years is not "holistic review of each individual," as Harvard claimed, but a de facto ratio quota, in violation of Supreme Court ruling of 1978. I do not have to mention other discriminations.
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 : "I challenged Harvard to open its admissions books if they claim their admissions practices are legal and not discriminatory against Asian Americans. So far, Harvard is not brave enough to respond to my challenge."
You think this is street fight in China? Do you even know how the U.S. legal system works? No wonder you're played by Edward Blum.
What happened to your case?! It got bounced right back because you didn't do your own homework and copied much material from Blum's case. You didn't get ANY answers you want. Meanwhile Blum got publicity and political cover from you, and his case is going forward. You have no operational control over Blum's case. You cannot stop him from proposing top x percent as solution. You leave our fate in others' hands. Some great job.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 why do you feel so depressed when we have a chance to change the status quo (which is the worst discrimination against our children)? I am very optimistic now
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 It is telling you have no defense against accusation of incompetence. You choose to degenerate to @Henry Yang 's level.
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 ? Disclose your real name, do not act as A Coward who hides his true identity and devoted to spreading misinformation and personal attack.
If you cannot handle a couple "shame on you" or "卑鄙”，you shouldn't participate in any political debates. 脸皮这么薄，参加选美得了。
老客Cliff李忠刚
@谈云识天气 “@赵宇空 Shame on you! You don't even know the actual position of Edward Blum in his Fisher case, and yet you support him, risk our kids!”"Shame on you" 用在这里有攻击意味，直接导致后面的气氛升级。请注意对事不对人，谢谢合作。- 群主
宇空，此群在努力寻求平衡点：既各方畅所欲言（问政），又注意方式避免argue影响思想交流（文化）。不会限制任何人提出意见，哪怕是鹰爪还是别有对华人不利的用心。反方的不当意见正是给自己澄清事实的机会，群民的眼睛是雪亮的，如@zhongdan lan 所述，未必要说服对方，是写给大家看的。但有时有人言语攻击，不管是因未控制好自己的情绪无意之举，还是故意，均对大家问政的效率不利，需要提醒或极偶尔才需要制止。总体来说，最近的气氛比较平和，特别是这几天，干货很多，特别是你参与之后，我也在学习中。@赵宇空
@赵宇空 I'm glad that you stated clearly this time that you are against the top x percent. If I give you original document evidence that Edward Blum side was advocating the top x percent in the Fisher case, you will publicly denounce him to protect our interests, right?
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 Sorry. It is unlikely for us to adopt any advice from somebody who hides his/her identity. We have not issued any document that indicated our support of top percentage approach. Our positions are as the following: 1. Ivy League Universities and other universities should eliminate racial discriminations against Asian Americans based on existing laws, in which racial consideration is only a minor factor, and used as the last resort for achieving diversity. 2. In the future, we support a race blind college admissions policy that are primarily merit based and equal to all racial groups. To address education issues in disadvantaged communities, we would support a social-economic based preference as long as it is race blind, effective and does not significantly undermine meritocracy in college admissions. 3. We fundamentally against using college admissions as a racial balancing tool. American government shall focus on improving K-12 education for so called "under-represented" racial groups, not using Asian Americans as scapegoats during college admissions! Any publications from Asian American Coalition for Education will reflect above positions.
谈云识天气
@赵宇空 I thought you don't have the intellectual integrity, nor guts, to stand by your own words.
谈云识天气
谈云识天气
This is the first page of oral argument transcript. Note the case, the court, the date. Remember the lawyer's name on Fisher/Blum side: REIN
赵宇空
@谈云识天气 请不要从事人身攻击。你是否理解“不支持”的意思？
谈云识天气
谈云识天气
U. Texas use top 10 percent rule to admit 75% of the student. Here Rein suggests to expand it.
谈云识天气
Here is the link to the whole document: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-345.pdf
谈云识天气
What do you say to self appointed "community leader" who jumped into bed with some political activists without any due diligent research? Incompetent? Maybe, could be worse, like blinded by ideology. More harm than good to our community? Definitely! Also "shame on you" sounds pretty reasonable by now.
赵宇空
希望某人不要再在群里从事混淆是非和人身攻击的行为了。我已经郑重阐述：Asian American Coalition for Education puts Asian-American children's interests first. We will have not supported and will not support any top percentages based college admissions policy. We support other party's lawsuit only to extent that is aligned with Asian American interest. We do not provide unconditional support to others (不是某人所污蔑的 "jumped into bed" ) . We are in a process of drafting our support to Fisher II case, according to our terms and aimed to promoting Asian American interests. We have many options to influence that top percentage approach will not be promoted and it is our discretion to select our options. However, we are very cautious to any attempt to use misinformation and some isolated examples to misguide our efforts or audience here.
黄奕
@谈云识天气 我正在你发上来的文件。我发现这个文件是2012年的。你有没有最近的？
陳年酒🍷
在不人身攻击，互相尊重的前提下，争议越激烈越好看
谈云识天气
@黄奕 October 10th, 2012 is the last time the Supreme Court heard the oral argument on the case. Following the hearing, on June 24th, 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court. Now this case will be heard again by the Supreme Court in the Fall of 2015 or Spring of 2016. The wheels of justice turn slowly.
这是我之前说的：“@谈云识天气 you had a totally wrong understanding of our position. From the start, we spoke of Asian American interests, never a supporter of anybody else. We supported Blum in Harvard case because it aligned with Asian American interest. We will support a racially blind solution for Fisher case, not top10%, regardless who proposed it!” 我们的文件里明确说了我们不支持top10，反映了我之前所阐述的立场。
@谈云识天气 请解释一下我们在第29页所注的这句话是什么意思。“8Amici AALF and AACE do not necessarily support the Top Ten Percent Plan, largely because while race-neutral in form, it was created and implemented specifically to achieve racialist re- sults. Rather, they note that it had undoubtedly already achieved the critical mass of targeted minorities the University says it desired in a clearly more narrowly tailored, less consti- tutionally suspect manner.” 如果你能依照你所说的凭良心发表评论的话
这句话是写在我们陈述文件第29上的“8Amici AALF and AACE do not necessarily support the Top Ten Percent Plan, largely because while race-neutral in form, it was created and implemented specifically to achieve racialist re- sults. Rather, they note that it had undoubtedly already achieved the critical mass of targeted minorities the University says it desired in a clearly more narrowly tailored, less consti- tutionally suspect manner.” 它白纸黑字地戳穿了@谈云识天气 的谎言。他应该向所有为维护亚裔权益奋斗的人士道歉！
@赵宇空 When will you understand Supreme Court is not supermarket?!You cannot just pick the stuff you want, you have to justify it through reason and logic.
You claim in your augment V that top 10 percent achieved diversity without using considering race. Given diversity is a recognized goal, and your side is arguing against using race as one of the factors. Isn't stand to reason that the Supreme Court would say, great, we find a solution, let's all adopt similar plans?!
