设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 视  频 博  客 论  坛 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
 
白凡的博客  
一个平凡人的雪泥鸿爪  
网络日志正文
紧急动员,决战最高法院! 2012-02-29 16:29:19

白凡按】谢谢各位的支持和参与。下面是朋友转来的有关80-20全美亚裔教育基金会收集签名的相关信息。本人未作研究和核对。贴在这里,仅供参考。

 

 

紧急动员:决战最高法院, 请投庄严一票捍卫你孩子公平竞争入学名校的机会

历史性的时刻已经到来了:2/21/2012,美国最高法院决定审理用“族裔”的理由来提高亚裔和白人高校入学门槛的做法是否违宪。您--关爱孩子未来的父母--现在就可以花一分钟时间来帮助孩子增大孩子上他们理想大学的机会。请您立即投票赞成(FOR全美亚裔教育基金会的民调书,清楚明白地表明亚裔在这件案子上的立场。


资料显示,亚裔在美国要比其他族裔成绩优秀许多才能上同样的学校。要上同样的名校,亚裔SAT要考1550分,白人1410分,而非裔只需要1100*(英文和数学满分是1600)。亚裔入学这么高的门槛使得许多亚裔的大学申请者非常害怕,有些干脆拒绝列出他们是亚裔其实学校一看名字还是能知道哪些孩子是亚裔。。。

下面几周内,我们需要征集到至少五万个签名,让结果写入Amicus Curiae (“法庭之友”的文书)作为证据资料递交最高法院。我们要表明亚裔赞同以考生的综合素质(而不是族裔)作为美国高校的招生标准。综合素质包括申请学生现在的学术成绩和未来可能的成功潜力,例如申请人是否能在不利的生活环境中仍能不懈努力等 (i.e. Overcome adversity under socio-economic constraint). 我们相信这样的定位能给所有的考生提供一个公平竞争的机会,也能给学校足够的弹性来制定他们的教育的目标。

之所以要五万个签名来支持这项活动是因为现在最高法院不知道亚裔作为少数族裔在这个案例上是支持还是反对高校取消‘族裔’作为录取标准的。通过我们初步的调查,绝大多数的亚裔是支持取消‘族裔’这个录取指标的。但是我们需要确实的数据来证明亚裔的立场,所以80-20全美亚裔教育基金会设计了这个民调书。

如果您愿意让你孩子抬头做人,在申请书上大大方方承认自己是亚裔,而不惧怕会受歧视而上不了理想的学校的话,请现在就到下面的网站来签名赞成80-20的民调书,并请您的其他的亚裔朋友都来签名。父母请各签一个名,有自由意志的学龄孩子也可以签名!(必须是绿卡或公民才可以投票,谢谢合作。)

时间紧迫,谢谢您支持签名和帮助转发!
(*Source: "No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life" by Thomas Espenshade (Princeton University Press, 2009) 


A historical moment has arrived.  On February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court decided to review a pending lawsuit that challenges the prevalence use of strong racial preferences in college admission. 
 
Please take this survey to project your voice to the Supreme Court. 
 
 
Your children’s future is literally in your hands! 
Currently, Asian Americans are being held at a much higher college admission standard.  To receive equal consideration for the top colleges, out of a 1600 SAT maximum (verbal & math)

       1550 for Asians = 1410 for Whites = 1100 for Blacks.

The strong racial preferences instilled such a fear among Asian American applicants that many refuse to state their ethnicities in college applications.  (Well, most of our LAST NAMES are a dead giveaway!)  If you want your children to face such a harsh reality, then do nothing.  Otherwise please take ONE minute to cast your vote.

We aim to gather 50,000 signatures and submit this national survey results to the Supreme Court.  We will submit an Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court” brief)advocating a race-neutral, merit-based college admission policy; with broadly defined merit to include current scholastic achievement and evaluated future potential of an applicant.  This nuanced position would provide fair and equitable opportunity to all applicants; while still provide the schools broad discretion in defining education objectives. 

Please fire up all your Asian American friends and families to vote.  The clock is ticking; the deadline to submit a legal briefing is less than two months away.  Every single vote counts.  Yes, parents should sign as two separate individuals, school children counts too if they understand the concept and have an opinion.
 
"YOU must be the change you wish to see in the world” —  Mahatma Gandhi

What is at stake?
For many Asian American parents, there is no larger issue at stake.  We spend tens (even hundreds) of thousands of dollars, devote most evenings and weekends over 18 years, scarifying and enduring all hardships in order to give our children the best college preparation, only to find out that we are a “wrong minority”whose qualifications are summarily discounted, by as much as 450 points out of 1600 SAT total, in order to make room for the others.  The others have decided long ago, without our consent and without our knowledge, that such reverse discrimination is “GOOD” for our kids and call it a “celebration of diversity”.  We beg to disagree: The very American ideal of Equal Opportunity, afforded to people of all races and ethnicities by the “Equal Protection Clause” in 14th Amendment of the US constitution, must prevail.
 
Racial balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it “racial diversity’”. Chief Justice John Roberts
 
Why the survey?
The Supreme Court takes up contentious issues and set legal precedents for the lower courts.  The rulings are based on the Justices’ lifelong personal experiences,available factual data, and their interpretation of the US constitution.
There have been insidious attempts to confuse the college admissions issue by labeling racial preferences as a struggle between the “white” and the “minorities”.  It is NOT, Asian Americans have been used as a sacrificial lamb to paper over a deep-rooted social problem: large and persistent achievement gaps among racial groups.  The Supreme Court might as well be confused, considering FOUR Asian American organizations have already filed Amicus Curiae saying Asian Americans all love racial preferences in college admissions.  This survey will set the record straight: NO, the vast majority of Asian Americans DO NOT support racial preferences.  Our internal opinion poll shows Asian Americans prefer a race-neutral and merit-based policy by a 10:1 margin.  This national survey will produce NEW factual data for the Supreme Court to consider, blocking a potent argument by our opponents.  Broad Asian American participation is critical.
 
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  — Dr. Martin Luther King
 
 
Why Amicus brief?
Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court” brief) is a legal process to influence the Court decision by someone who is not a party to the lawsuit but has a vested interest in the outcome.  This third party volunteers to offer pertinent information to assist the Court in decision making.  There is a two-month window during which Amicus can be filed, starting from the date the Court takes a case.  The clock starts ticking on February 21, 2012.
 
Why now?
Only 5% of the US population is Asian Americans. Normally fractious and indifferent, we are mostly invisible.  This Supreme Court case is closely contested, which enables us to tip the balance through a cohesive action.  It is equivalent to a minority exerting a disproportionally influence by throwing a block vote in a tight election.
The opportunity for the Supreme Court to review college racial preferences is very rare.  It only happened twice before:  In 1978 Bakker and 2003 Grutter, the decisions were extremely tight, with 5:4 votes in favor of the schools.  The current Court is more hostile to racial preferences.  We can tip the balance by influencing the opinion of just ONE Justice through unity and hard work.
A Supreme Court ruling can have a multi-decade influence across the country.  If we do not act NOW, it would be too late for all our children who are already born today.
 
Can we win?
We have a > 50% chance to win if we act in unity and with determination.
There are eight Justices (The ninth, Justice Kagan has recused herself):  Four (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia) are reliable opponent to racial preferences, and Three (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor) are reliable supporter of racial preferences, this leaves Justice Kennedy the key swing vote.
Three likely scenarios:
1)      Kennedy rules in favor of racial preferences: In a 4:4 tie, the Fifth Circuit court ruling stands, the status quo is maintained for the next two decades.  We LOSE BIG.
2)      Kennedy strictly limits the use of racial preferences: In a 5:3 ruling, the schools would be under “strict scrutiny” to justify any use of racial preferences.  We have a significant win.
3)      Kennedy upholds the 14th Amendment “Equal Protection Clause”: In a 5:3 ruling, all racial preferences are banned.  We WIN BIG.
Don’t be tricked
Be aware of the trick questions from racial preferences supporters:
 
“Are you against affirmative action?” (Implying you are not progressive)
“Affirmative Action (AA)” is a toxic and much abused phrase.  It means totally different things to different people that it is completely meaningless to answer yes or no without explicit definition. Check out the official Department of Labor definition: “take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunityfor employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability”.  The original meaning of AA is “stop past racial discrimination now or face penalty.”  In common practice, however, AA has been stretched beyond imagination and morphed into “apply reverse discrimination to others so that the some preferred minorities can be equally represented despite of lesser qualifications.”  In addition, AA means “racial” to some,  “socioeconomic” to the others.  Please answer the question using words other than AA.  Otherwise your opponent would take your yes/no, switch the meaning, and insist you said so.
 
“What? You don’t support diversity?” (Implying you are narrow minded)
Diversity is more than skin deep:  We support a diversity of ideas and socioeconomic backgrounds, which can be achieved through a sharp focus on individualcharacter strengths without resorting to race and ethnicity.  For example, the schools could use a combination of socioeconomic conditions and performance of a student within such constraint to identify high-potential individuals.  If a socioeconomically disadvantaged group produces a disproportionally large percentage of students in this category, and therefore disproportionally benefits from such a preference, so be it.  The key departure from the current practice is that individual efforts are needed to gain admission, rather than  relying on a caricature of group characteristics, such as race and ethnicity.  After all, a poor African American kid and a poor Asian American kid from equally socioeconomically disadvantaged family backgrounds should compete based on their personal drives to succeed despite of the adverse conditions.  Racial preferences disproportionally benefit suburban wealth minorities who happen to have the “right” skin color, at the expense of their poor brethren and all others.
 
“What? You don’t support equal opportunity for under-represented minority?”
We support Equal Opportunity, we oppose Equal Representation.  Equal opportunity is to provide opportunity consistent with one’s qualifications and let him to rise or fall based on performance.  It doesn’t imply equal outcome.  Equal representation, on the other hand, is to make the outcome proportional to the population regardless of one’s qualifications.  It insists on equal outcome, which is Communism in disguise.  Confusing the two dichotomous concepts would drag us into gratuitous battles against our community interest.
 
Equal Representation is also known as “Racial Balancing”.  After being consistently ruled as unconstitutional, its supporters now call it “Racial Diversity”.  After all, who does not love diversity?
 
“Let’s show solidarity with other minorities in our struggle with the white majority.”
Viewing everything through the 1960s prism of black vs. white struggle is not only antiquated but downright dangerous.  The real issue is some people used Asian Americans as a pawn in a proxy battle to achieve racial balancing.  The interests of four million Asian American children were sacrificed for someone else’s gain, all without our knowledge or consent.  They have the right to sacrifice their own children’s futures if they truly believe in their causes, but they have NO right to do this to YOUR children unless YOU give the consent.  This is the reason we launch this survey project to hear YOUR voice.  Please cast your solemn vote.
 
“Do you NOT have any compassion toward under-privileged people?”
Quite contrary, we do.  True compassion is to attack the root cause of the problem.  Do you help a cancer patient by putting on a Band-Aid, and then wear it like an honor badge proclaiming “I helped him”?  You are killing him by giving false hope while delaying real treatment. The patient needs chemotherapy, which is painful, lengthy but effective.  The root-causes of the low academic achievement in some ethnic groups are the lack of parent involvements, low community expectation, and poor quality of the K-12 education.  Achieving success requires hard work, persistency and sacrifice.  It is already too late by the time a student gets out of the high school.  Giving out college admissions on a platter only feeds entitlement. Please read the following reports to appreciate how racial preferences actually hurts the intended beneficiaries, with “academic mismatch” leading to self-segregation and less classroom diversity [1], undermining minority enrollment in science and engineering [2], reducing the graduation rate [3], and damaging the minority pipeline in academia [4].
[1] “The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions”, R. Elliott et. al. 37 Research in Higher Education 681 (1996)
[2] “Encouraging Minority Students to Pursue Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Careers”, US Commission on Civil Rights, Briefing Report, Oct 2010.
[3] “Are Black/White Disparities in Graduation and Passing the Bar Getting Worse, or Better?” by R. Sander. http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/09/ sander_2_black_.html
[4] “The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students” (Harvard University Press 2003)
 
“Race is just ‘one of the many factors’, a ‘tie breaker’, a ‘nudge factor’.”
What a patent lie!  Study after study show racial preferences as a dominant factor in college admissions.  If all other credentials are equal, Asian-Americans need to score 140 points more than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points above African-Americans out of a maximum 1600 on the math and reading SAT to have the same chance of admission to a top private college.    Please show any data to the contrary before making the “tie breaker” argument again.
 
“Asian Americans lack personal appeal, which offset their academic performance.”
We challenge the colleges to open up their admission files for social study before propagating racial stereotype.  Asian stereotyping like this helped keep Jeremy Lin on the bench until his coach ran out of other “warm bodies” to play.  It is even sadder that some Asian Americans also buy into such crap. 
Do you see the sinister cycle?  Raise the bar on Asian Americans => Force us Asian Americans to work harder to achieve more => Increase the difference between the ethnic groups => You folks must be academic robots => Robots are weird, lacks personal appeal => Justify the decision to raise the bar even higher to make room for the others.
 
“We are a ‘model minority’, need to work harder, achieve more for the same recognition.”
Just say NO!  We want equal opportunity based on our qualifications, as enshrined in the “Equal Protect Clause” of the 14th Amendment.
The “model minority” stereotype has inflicted considerable damages to the Asian American community by justifying the exclusion of assistance programs to the needy and discounting the achievements of all individuals.  College admission is just one such example. 
 
“I had a 3.7 undergraduate GPA. As an Asian I didn't qualify for loans or grants as I was not an 'under-rep' minority so worked 3 jobs to get through school. One of them was to tutor 'under-rep' minorities that usually had GPA in the 1's and 2's and had an overall graduation rate of 30%. Just lowering the bar to absolute rock bottom to meet diversity quotas is absolutely, positively absurd. They never graduate...because most weren't qualified to go. Fix the problem in K-12 because it's pointless by college.”  —BrandonH, St. Louis, upon reading “Some Asian’s College Strategy: Don’t Check ‘Asian’
 
“You are stirring up racial tension by talking about such a sensitive topic.”
Just the opposite, we ask the society to pay lesser attention to race and more to individual qualifications.  American may have been the only developed nation to even allow the race question to be asked in college applications.  Canada, Austrian, and the European nations DO NOT ask this question.  Why are we so fixated in insisting to identify every ingredient in the melting pot, if we do not intent to use such data for the purpose of differential treatment?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”    — Chief Justice John Roberts
 
“Sky will fall on African Americans and Latinos if the Supreme Court bans racial preferences”
Why would racial preferences proponents refuse to look at the real-life data?  40% of the US population lives in states in which public universities are not using preferences.  Has the sky fallen in these states?  The best example is California.  After Proposition 209 was passed in 1996 banning racial preferences, there was an initial drop in Blacks and Latinos enrollment.  The enrollment returned to the highest pre-1996 level in 2002, increased another 40% by 2007, together with increased socioeconomic diversification and improved classroom integration.  Through a focus on improved K-12 education, the number of academically strong minority students has also increased remarkably.  This is exactly the right approach: Forcing everyone into a race to the top, rather than pulling everyone down to the bottom.  The proponents of racial preferences only want to advertise what happened immediately after Prop 209, and refuse to acknowledge what happened afterward.

浏览(2281) (0) 评论(24)
发表评论
文章评论
作者:bbcc 留言时间:2012-03-01 12:40:41
completely waste of time and engery... universities can bypass the question of race, but use admission applicants' residing areas, graduation high schools, families' income levels, parents' education levels, etc., to ''build a desired learning environment''
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-03-01 12:12:05
完全同意庄兄的看法!有人很鼓励中国人在中国示威,很反对在美华人类似的行动。很奇怪。

欧阳兄的思考很好。在反对一派中是比较有深度和道理的。也看到了狼狼说的那篇。准备写专文回应,就不在此说了。

谢谢各位!
回复 | 0
作者:庄锐 留言时间:2012-03-01 10:52:23
白兄,我觉得欧阳锋的看法很有些道理,但是我不同意他的结论意见。

我觉得作为整体,我们只能反对明的歧视。 比如绝不能容许白人公开辱骂华人。但是某个白人内心怎么想,他在他家里骂华人一通,我们管不着。 

至于潜规则的歧视,我觉得作为整体反而不好反对。 因为你看不见,怎么反? 但是如果作为个体受到潜规则的歧视,就可以合理地采取某种合适的方式争锋相对了。

比如,平等被雇的权力,你怎么去反? 这个问题比招生更大。 除非你本人有适当的理由和某种途径! 这就是一个很难的问题,这就是有时候甚至需要打擦边球的问题。

我反对暴力,但是有些情况下到底该不该合理地使用暴力也是难以说清楚的。那就看当事人了,软蛋活该倒霉! 所以黑人用大规模的暴动赢来的相对平等是值得我们思考的!

华人不断地以各种各样的方式发出我们的声音,绝对是正确的。即使不完全正确也可以发出声音。否则,如果我们给其他美国人造成一个逆来顺受的软蛋形象,那么只会被肆无忌惮地歧视。 反歧视,必须展现勇气和意志的力量;反歧视公开地反没有什麽不妥。这个招生问题,可以说就是反对明确的歧视。难道“合法”就不是歧视?

你们说一说“示威游行”到底是干什麽? 有人真的怕你那么几句口号就修改政策法规?“示威游行”的“潜台词”就是展现这么多人发出声音,要是不被听见说不准有人背后给你一下子! 这才是示威游行的“示威”之含义。 这也就是如果华人受到公开的歧视,我们就要大喊大叫的原因。

我们就是要显出在这个问题上我们“站边”而团结,就是要摆出我们中间即使有人过分了一点我们也要全力支持的姿态。 这样才有“威”可以展“示”, “示威”就不能过分理智。有几个人表现出不是很理智,恰恰就有了“威”。 就是告诉对方,我们愿意吃苦,愿意妥协,但是不要太过分。 小心“软蛋”也可能拿起某种“武器”,这才是“威”嘛。 否则你反什麽鬼!鬼才把你那书生气的叫嚷当回事。
回复 | 0
作者:狼 狼 留言时间:2012-03-01 10:33:29
白博主,有人在叫板呢:)

俺是报信的,光打酱油。左左们别跟俺急。俺小狼闪了。

____________________________

网络日志正文

最近,有黄皮要夺马丁路得金博士的革命成果 2012-03-01 09:48:23

最近,有黄皮要夺马丁路得金博士的革命成果,让我想起祖国河南袁氏要夺岭南孙氏的革命成果的旧事,很是感慨,黄皮这么多年居然一点进步都没有。当年无视多少侠客为了推翻满清,短铳炸弹头颅。现在又有黄皮不顾金博士为了争取少数民族的解放献出了生命,金博士的战友还有很多关在美国秦城“虎阱”里,还有更多的被美国海关禁止回乡。黄皮,你们考试能多考几分又怎么了,你们对少数民族的解放事业又没贡献。你们就是一群捡现成的。

 

遭阿瞒的博客
回复 | 0
作者:皇城根儿 留言时间:2012-03-01 08:50:58
认同欧阳老弟的观点。同样是少数族裔, 社会地位上top10%的华人群体去跟bottom15%的弱势群体去竞争大学名额,臊不臊得慌? 这就跟住在北京和上海这样大城市的学生和广大的农村和民工学生竞争在北京和上海上大学的机会一样让人不齿。

这回读者要当一次左派。
回复 | 0
作者:欧阳峰 留言时间:2012-03-01 08:10:16
我认为从政治上和务实上说,华人参与挑战平权法案是不明智的。理由如下。
1。虽然华人在大学申请是强势群体,但在美国社会很多地方是弱势,比如企业和政界高层。我们华人需要与其它弱势群体联合起来争取权益,而不是站在强势一边。

2。在大学录取问题上,华人面对主要不是其他少数民族的“法定优势”,而是白人在传统和文化偏见上的优势。如果真能做到“不看肤色”当然最好,但实际是不可能的。取消平权法案使得种族歧视由明变暗,华人反而更吃亏。

3。平权法案虽然在大学录取上不把华人列入照顾之列,但毕竟提供了关于种族的统计资料,便于我们争取自己权益。如果废除这个法案,那我们在偏向白人的“潜规则”面前更是只能吃哑巴亏了。

4。在这个“高调”问题上发言,肯定有助于某些组织的政治影响力。但是否有助于华人,值得深思。
回复 | 0
作者:庄锐 留言时间:2012-03-01 08:07:45
回白兄的感叹,“想不通为什么还有华人出来说风凉话。这些人反华反浑了头了。” 我老早就有了答案,没有说出来。

有几个人是“心态失去平衡”,说话不是靠脑子是感觉。 要是说他们自私狭隘也不对,他们只是有一点“心理”毛病。 这“一点”表现出来有时大有时小,可就是去不掉。 
回复 | 0
作者:皇城根儿 留言时间:2012-03-01 07:29:05
这不是很明显嘛,就是“不跟他们玩儿了”的意思。
回复 | 0
作者:狼 狼 留言时间:2012-03-01 04:11:08
博主呀,俺小狼不是好好地在帮你说话么,有他烂三屎啥事?

是鸭他嘴硬挑事的。这个俺小狼的爪下败将也就是鸭嘴硬,别的全软:)

烂三:

白博又没帮俺小狼说好话,鸭你上啥火呀? 鸭你欲火又上啦?
回复 | 0
作者:狼 狼 留言时间:2012-03-01 03:20:50
博主呀,就烂三屎这么个畜生,你还指望啥?他爹妈扒灰生出这么个杂种,还整天自以为是,想学俺小狼的本领又没学成,也就会学着打两句哈哈。这么个智商,还有啥可值得期待的。
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:37:02
蓝天兄,谢谢来访!

我们还是对后生们寄以期待吧!
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:35:03
庄兄,赢三更好,赢二也不错。咱们只有尽力而为。80-20在前面努力,我们只是呼吁一下,花一分钟投一投票。想不通为什么还有华人出来说风凉话。这些人反华反浑了头了。
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:25:45
黑河兄好!

关于怎样投票,我在上一篇文中已有说明。我估计有人投反对票,有可能是理解错误。也有可能是有意识投反对票。民主嘛,应该这样。

我曾经试图将全文翻成中文。中间出错一次,全部弄丢了。就难得再弄了。反正这里的读者都可以读英语的。
回复 | 0
作者:blueskycnau 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:19:41
博主呀,就叉狼这么个畜生,你还指望啥?他爹妈扒灰生出这么个杂种,还整天自以为是,想学那老穆的本领又没学成,也就会学着打两句哈哈。这么个智商,还有啥可值得期待的。
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:16:58
狼狼,本人确实老了。不知你这样的后生能给你的父辈什么期待。
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:16:26
网络游戏,欢迎来访!

你比我聪明得多了。谢谢你的高明主意。不过本人并不认为有何“失误”。如果有,那也是万维误导的结果。今天的新闻,一般人当然以为是今天的事情。我有何必要掩盖什么?
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:06:27
根儿啊,我都不知道怎么说你好。

就算你儿子去中国上大学。你就不可以为在美的华人鼓与呼一下吗?就算你自己不愿,别的华人的努力,也该给你说风凉话吗?你想要说什么?
回复 | 0
作者:白凡 留言时间:2012-02-29 23:01:56
庄兄,谢谢你对华人维权的支持!
回复 | 0
作者:庄锐 留言时间:2012-02-29 21:22:57
对于所说的下列三个可能,我觉得我们如果得到2)就是大赢了。 因为我感觉完全取消种族考虑好像不大可能。

-----------------
Three likely scenarios:
1) Kennedy rules in favor of racial preferences: In a 4:4 tie, the Fifth Circuit court ruling stands, the status quo is maintained for the next two decades. We LOSE BIG.
2) Kennedy strictly limits the use of racial preferences: In a 5:3 ruling, the schools would be under “strict scrutiny” to justify any use of racial preferences. We have a significant win.
3) Kennedy upholds the 14th Amendment “Equal Protection Clause”: In a 5:3 ruling, all racial preferences are banned. We WIN BIG.
回复 | 0
作者:黑河人 留言时间:2012-02-29 20:50:19
39/1?

That must be something wrong, people might be confused for which choice means supporting ourselves. Pls simplize the article and Put Chinese

<SELECT "FOR">

just before the link for final reminding.

Sorry for my new computer has no chinese font yet.
回复 | 0
作者:狼 狼 留言时间:2012-02-29 19:00:26
网老兄,淡定呀!

96年的旧闻高兴高兴也好呀! 有啥好挑剔的。

哎呀,白博是人老眼花喽,搞个笑呀,做个秀啥的当然是会走些调的啦。你们这些老家伙们都应该向俺小狼学学,淡定淡定:)
回复 | 0
作者:网络游戏 留言时间:2012-02-29 18:47:09
博主很聪明啊。通过这个博文把上一个失误给掩盖了。

建议博主把我这个跟贴同你的上一个1996年古董插旗帖一起删除吧。
回复 | 0
作者:皇城根儿 留言时间:2012-02-29 17:21:39
读者准备鼓励儿子去中国上大学。所以。。。嘿嘿~呵呵~嗯嗯~哦哦
回复 | 0
作者:庄锐 留言时间:2012-02-29 17:17:34
这个题目行很好,铿锵有力气势磅礴。多做这样的事情,我们华人就会广为其他美国人知晓。有利于重新树立我们华人的形象,谢谢白兄的奉献与努力。
回复 | 0
我的名片
白凡
注册日期: 2008-12-29
访问总量: 1,302,640 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
我的公告栏
敬告网友
最新发布
· “incapacity to do something”在
· 从评论看我所知道的花见草
· 媒体的言论自由等于公民的言论自
· 远行归来有感(七律一首)
· 也来秀一秀我的夫人(标题党。慎
· 转基因巨擘孟山都与美国政治
· 等闲花鸟莫相疑
友好链接
· 史语:史语的博客
· 别煮啦:别煮的博客
· 汤安:汤安的博客
· 法国刘学伟博士:法国刘学伟博士
· 居日华2011:居日华2011的博客
· 漂移:漂移的博客
· 山月歌:山月歌的博客
· 老冬儿:老冬儿的博客
· 5daziyou:五大自由的博客
· 方鲲鹏:方鲲鹏
· 令狐冲:拔剑四顾心茫然
· 山哥:山哥的文化广场
· 瀛洲大蟹:轻扣柴扉
· 信济:信济龙行
· 落基山人:落基山人的博客
· 欢乐诵:欢乐诵
· 舒林子:舒林子的博客
· 叶子:却道天凉好个秋
· 寄自美国:寄自美国的博客
· 丹奇:丹奇
· 椰子:椰风阵阵,思绪如河
· 芦鹤:芦鹤
分类目录
【随着小儿一道成长】
· 想起情窦初开的豆蔻年华
· 周末工程:为马自达MPV换车门把
· 与小儿一起成长:周末工程
【美国民主与政客】
· 美国政客的个人财产状况及生财之
· 美国人的轮流做庄v.s中国人的任
· 有关国会道德委员会的几件轶人轶
· 美国民主政治中的政客财产登记制
· 从“绑倒您(Bundling)”看美国政
【美国民主与院外游说】
· 石棉之祸:美国民主深度解析(下
· 石棉之祸:美国民主深度解析(上
· 说客与政客的利益共生关系
· 美国民主的第三院和第四权
· 华盛顿:K街上的利益掮客
· 美國民主的猪耳朵
【意大利印象:中部】
【微博】
· 公开的悄悄话致落基山人
· 見過不要臉的,沒有見過如此不要
· 少儿不宜:禁果(Forbidden Frui
· 你知道两党合作(bipartisan)是
· 百年与千年和太近与太远(微博)
· 掘墓人的豪迈、快乐、与悲哀(微
· 不看不知道,一看吓一跳(微博)
· 我们应该有所行动吗?(中微博)
· 生死存亡的“游戏”
【意大利印象:威尼斯】
【意大利印象】
· 养在深闺的锡耶纳
· 夕阳无限好,沉浮威尼斯
· 威尼斯大运河、水巷、和贡多拉船
· 威尼斯的前世今生
· 意大利印象:维罗纳一日
· 米蘭印象(二)
· 米蘭印象(一)
· 關於行萬里路的隨想
【月弯儿:西方看中国】
· 月弯儿:旅英生活体验(二)
· 月弯儿:旅英生活体验(一)
· 西方看中国之四: 中国将会成为怎
· 月弯儿西方看中国之三:中国与多
· 就马丁杰奎斯的文章答阿妞不牛
· 月弯儿:西方看东方之二: 了解中
· 中国比西方更民主和合乎理法吗?
【美国统治阶级】
· 4. 也谈是谁在真正统治美国(三
· 3. 美国的左派传统、全球化、和
· 2. 也谈是谁在真正统治美国(二
· 1. 也谈是谁在真正统治美国(一
【美国民主与金钱资本】
· 4. 公司化的美国: 一人一票后面
· 3. 金钱来自何处,又去向何方?
· 2. 党派政治与金钱资本:从“劫位
【美国民主与工会】
· 5. 杰瑞布朗对麦格魏特曼:工会
· 4. 工会:美国政坛的大玩家
· 3. 公共事业工会影响下的美国人
· 2. 美国工运的衰落与公共事业工
· 1. 工会作为公司化美国的大股东
【美元危机】
· 4. 美国经济的真实现状与一种可
· 3. “班克”:它是取代美元的下一
· 2. 从欧洲的前车之鉴看美元的衰
· 1. 盛世危言:美国的末日来到了
【詩文賞析】
· 重读《悼杨铨》
· 故土情怀与梅花精神
· 胡天游的《晓行》诗:骈文名家的
· 古诗声律简要
· 江山无恙时的兴亡之叹
· 离形得似,刻画入神的诗中逸品
· 江波流尽千年事,明月白鸥都不知
· 岁晚江湖同是客,莫辞伴我更南飞
· “無理而妙”與“化實為虛”–晚唐羅
· 万古至今同此恨,谁来翻新唱暮春
【詩文賞析2】
· 软摇滚:麦克学摇滚与他们翻唱的
· 蓦然回首思“更雨”- Mt. Rainier
· 和半江红《桂花暗渡忍冬香》一首
· 月夜庭中抒怀(七律一首)
· 论诗诗(七律一首)
· 艺园诗(外二首)
· 棕榈泉游记兼和沙之舟
· 软摇滚:麦克学摇滚与他们翻唱的
· 软摇滚:麦克学摇滚与他们翻唱的
· 读冬儿《剑门关怀古》有和 (七
【詩文賞析3】
· 远行归来有感(七律一首)
· 落叶(七律)
· 意态楚楚的假隐士
· 李西涯专在虚字上用功夫,如何当
· 中秋夜赏月游网题叶子贝克山行(
【美國萬花筒1】
· 民主的西瓜
· 书评:亨利基辛格《论中国》
· 政府拯救房市的钱是怎样花出去的
· 人在西方,勿犯政治路线错误
· 奥巴马国情咨文中文全译(二)
· 奥巴马国情咨文中文全译(一)
· 也談海外華人愛看國內電視劇
· 由江海松博士机场吻别說到中美、
· 關于手紙、廁所以及抽水馬桶的故
【美國萬花筒2】
· 阶级斗争,真的一抓就灵吗?
· 亲历南加州全境大停电
· 奥萨马之死:另一只潘多拉的盒子
· 君子群而不党,乡原德之贼也——兼
· 美国是强奸犯的天堂吗?
· 在2010年的选举中,投下你的神圣
· 有感于不是中国人的中国人答舒林
· 由填写人口普查问卷所想到的
【美國萬花筒3】
· 好莱坞电影《惊爆内幕》故事情节
· 温馨提示:假日幸存十二法
· 小儿要我投奥巴马一票
· 我与死神擦肩而过(后续)
· 破产的政府与零票当选的议员
· 分享一件生活中的真实美国法制故
· 美国国会研究报告:理解中国的政
· 我与死神擦肩而过
· 快讯:奥萨马本拉丁死掉了
· 他为何放弃美国国籍?
【美國萬花筒4】
· 媒体的言论自由等于公民的言论自
· 转基因巨擘孟山都与美国政治
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(续完)
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(七)
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(六)
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(五)
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(四)
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(三)
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(二)
· “美国杨佳”致美国宣言书(一)
【隔山打牛】
· 所谓“言论自由”在中国的困境
· ZT:中国向何处去?
· 也从司马南事件看中国的希望又及
· 亿元善款在台湾:陈光标的行为艺
· 刘晓波上位的一个可能
· 南海东海黄海:以战止战,才有持
· 中国炮击钓鱼岛又如何?
· 我的关于富士康员工跳楼的tow ce
· 袁腾飞:大众俗文化中的怪胎
· Loser之歌及国人对海归的误读
【林林总总】
· 两全其美贴图法
· 兔年的祝福
· 唱了豺狼来了有猎枪,So What?
· 解禁的照片--变态而残暴的日本人
· 周末愉快:带色儿的绝对
· 众议院议长佩洛西是一个圣人
· 《鹰隼大队》:歼十看上去帅呆了
· 转贴:一位台湾学校校长在中国内
【林林总总2】
· 欣闻五星红旗、青天白日旗插上了
· 响应丹奇,请签署这个呼吁书
· 中国的政治制度比美国的民主更灵
· 穆沙抬杠录
· 我与两分钱和德孤的有限交流
· 媒体的品格
· 日本东电公司澄清所谓“五十死士”
· 白凡致万维的紧急再声明
· 中國人,說一個“愛”字太沉重
【林林总总3】
· 一则悄悄话引起的公案
· 悄悄话致春夏无名,瀛洲大蟹,丹
· 社交网络和个人隐私
· 怎样打破汽车玻璃?童子军教的办
· 这位大佬究竟是谁?(微博)
· (微博)希拉里怎么了?
· 四川人看医生;品位虽然不太高,
· 回收站 (Recycle Bin)
· 吹毛求疵谈温家宝的“美女翻译”
· 为董卿说错别字找个借口:都是繁
【林林总总4】
· “incapacity to do something”在
· 也来秀一秀我的夫人(标题党。慎
· 等闲花鸟莫相疑
· 人狗之间
· 真正的釣魚島島主找到了,有慈禧
· 祝各位,掐的和不掐的,都节日快
· 万维恶意软件警告!
· 中国好人
· 万维博客病毒警告
· 夕阳之歌(图)
【华人社区】
· 答欧阳锋再谈决战高法
· 紧急动员,决战最高法院!
· 美国高法将重审大学招生中的种族
【好莱坞掠影】
· 从The Insider的故事看美国传媒
· 且看好莱坞怎样戏说历史:汤姆库
【美国游记】
· 蓦然回首思“更雨”- Mt. Rainier
· 贾西瓦树国家公园
· 棕榈泉游记兼和沙之舟
【隔山打牛2】
· 再论中国炮击钓鱼岛
· 辛子陵在沪讲话(全文转贴)
· 我为何对温总感到失望?
【中国文化研究】
· 从耳食之言得来的“学问”
· 基督教与西方国家的文化涂鸦与种
· 我们为何研究中国文化?
· 臣妾意识与女性人格 ——古代士大
【万维左右】
· 从评论看我所知道的花见草
· 发生过的历史难以轻易抹杀
· 答翅膀先生和白凡谈政教分离
· 就网上交友与美国言论自由答“运
· 出入万维谈“左”“右”
· 明星博主与网管互动--也向万维网
【环保与人】
· 为儿童还是为海狮?动物活动家们
· 绿警察,哥本哈根会议与中庸之道
【世博掠影】
· 世博三日记(3)
· 世博三日记(2)
· 世博三日记(1)
【明初那些人與事】
· 明初排名第三文人之死
【古代文論散論】
· 陆机《文赋》三题
· 从“养气”说看苏辙的文艺思想
【楊基研究】
· 楊基家世考
【四杰年譜】
· 【四杰年譜】 1357:元至正十七
· 【四杰年譜】 1356:元至正十六
· 【四杰年譜】 1352: 元至正十二
· 【四杰年譜】 1351: 元至正十一
· 【四杰年譜】 1347: 元至正七年
· 【四杰年譜】 1326: 元泰定三年
· 【四杰年譜】 1301: 元成宗大徳
· 明初四杰年譜說明
【明初四杰研究】
存档目录
2013-04-01 - 2013-04-28
2013-03-01 - 2013-03-23
2013-02-01 - 2013-02-23
2013-01-10 - 2013-01-30
2012-12-05 - 2012-12-23
2012-11-03 - 2012-11-21
2012-10-01 - 2012-10-31
2012-09-03 - 2012-09-28
2012-08-24 - 2012-08-24
2012-07-01 - 2012-07-31
2012-06-01 - 2012-06-26
2012-05-01 - 2012-05-28
2012-04-11 - 2012-04-11
2012-03-01 - 2012-03-30
2012-02-04 - 2012-02-29
2012-01-06 - 2012-01-14
2011-12-08 - 2011-12-28
2011-11-03 - 2011-11-14
2011-10-04 - 2011-10-29
2011-09-09 - 2011-09-09
2011-08-07 - 2011-08-31
2011-07-01 - 2011-07-27
2011-06-07 - 2011-06-21
2011-05-01 - 2011-05-25
2011-04-12 - 2011-04-28
2011-03-07 - 2011-03-23
2011-02-01 - 2011-02-24
2011-01-05 - 2011-01-26
2010-12-02 - 2010-12-18
2010-11-01 - 2010-11-28
2010-10-05 - 2010-10-28
2010-09-08 - 2010-09-29
2010-08-09 - 2010-08-25
2010-07-14 - 2010-07-30
2010-06-22 - 2010-06-29
2010-05-18 - 2010-05-27
2010-04-21 - 2010-04-29
2010-03-02 - 2010-03-24
2010-02-01 - 2010-02-26
2010-01-02 - 2010-01-29
2009-12-15 - 2009-12-28
2009-10-29 - 2009-10-29
2008-12-29 - 2008-12-30
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2024. Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.