5 ms·

Regarding the first part, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with gender or race. The question was whether gender/race education has been priorit

Regarding the first part, I don't disagree. However, that has nothing to do with gender or race. The question was whether gender/race education has been prioritized over math/science, and if so, did it result in worse math/science education. What you described has been happening long before anyone cared about gender and race. > Modern woke "education" on race/gender focuses exclusively on black/latino races and LGBT peoples. Because those are the groups who have historically been most oppressed in North America. I'm sure students will have discussion at some point about Asians being discriminated against by Harvard, but it's clear that slavery and gay bashing has had a much worse effect on black and gay people than being rejected by Harvard has had on Asian people, and I say this as an Asian person.

WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
The person you're responded to stated: "There is no discussion on the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese concentration camps of WWII." You're making their point by disregarding that bit.
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  I can’t speak to the CEA, but we do teach kids about Japanese internment. Let’s assume that we focus more on black and gay issues though. The parent answered his own question as to why we might focus more on black and gay issues > Because Asians are “overrepresented” It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.
  - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
    Forgive me for continuing this thread, but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians. They actually use scare quotes when using the word 'overrepresented'. You also disregarded the part of their answer which doesn't seem to include doubt. The full quote is: "Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work." And if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination, then I agree. I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling. I've found this quote with a brief Google search, "The three surveys of American adults consistently indicated that gay men are far more likely than straight men to have graduated from high school or college, with just over half of gay men having earned a college degree, compared with about 35 percent of straight men. Some 6 percent of gay men have a Ph.D., J.D. or M.D. — a rate 50 percent higher than that of straight men." From this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/straight-men-face-educational-crisis-gay-men-excel-academically-study-rcna18018 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/straight-men-face-e...
    - PierceJoy 4y ago
      > but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians They literally wrote that though: > For example, no discussion is given to the fact that...Similarly no discussion is given to the fact that...There is no discussion on the...Why? Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work. > I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling I didn't say they were overrepresented in higher education. This thread isn't specifically about the Harvard problem. It's about the parent thinking that "woke" people only care about discrimination against black, latino, and gay people. I'm saying that the focus is on those groups because they have typically been the most effected by discrimination. If Asian people are overrepresented in what society might call successful careers, then I think it absolutely makes sense to focus on groups that are underrepresented. It's also not at all true that Asian racism is ignored. There was huge outcries when Asians were being assaulted randomly.
      - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
        I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement. You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here, but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, as you say, so for this reason I assumed higher education was the focus.
        PierceJoy 4y ago
        > I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement. Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written. > You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here I'm really not. > but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education. Maybe the part you missed is where I stated > It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient. This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education.
ceeplusplus 4y ago
> The question was whether gender/race education has been prioritized over math/science, and if so, did it result in worse math/science education The primary motivation for holding back students _was_ gender/race concerns. It's plainly stated in the GP's linked document and in many other documents on the CA education "reforms" that differentiating students into different tracks is supposedly racist. > What you described has been happening long before anyone cared about gender and race No, it hasn't. State standardized testing has lowered standards, but individual school districts have always been free to move advanced students onto a faster track. I don't know of any high performing school district that actually cared about standardized testing results, because their students were so overprepared for the state tests it didn't matter. > being rejected by Harvard has had on Asian people, and I say this as an Asian person I see you're not familiar with the history of American discrimination towards Asians. Maybe we do need some education in our schools on racism against Asians to teach people like you? You should start with the Wikipedia article on the Chinese Exclusion Act and go from there. I don't see how you can compare gay bashing to literal concentration camps, systemic bans on Chinese immigration, and indentured servitude of Chinese railroad workers. > I say this as an Asian person Would you feel the same if you worked your ass off and got rejected but saw people with inferior achievements around you get accepted because of their skin color? If I was your boss and I promoted your black coworker over you because of his skin color wouldn't you be mad? Don't dismiss the hard work of millions of high school students applying to college with a simple "being rejected by Harvard".
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  > The primary motivation for holding back students _was_ gender/race concerns. It’s plainly stated in the GP’s linked document and in many other documents on the CA education “reforms” that differentiating students into different tracks is supposedly racist. You say things like “supposedly”. What if it is? > No, it hasn’t. Yes, it has. I witnessed parents complaining about the removal of specialized tracks in the 90’s, in nearly 100% white communities. It had nothing to do with race, and everything do with with parents not wanting to accept that their kid didn’t have the same abilities as other kids. Maybe the focus has changed to race now, but this is nothing new. > I see you’re not familiar with the history of American discrimination towards Asians. Maybe we do need some education in our schools on racism against Asians to teach people like you? People like me? That’s very rude, and very much in bad faith, which is against the HN guidelines. I’ve tried to avoid that language myself, and would appreciate if you did as well. As for me not being familiar, my father was in an internment camp. I'm likely more familiar than you are. > I don’t see how you can compare gay bashing to literal concentration camps, systemic bans on Chinese immigration, and indentured servitude of Chinese railroad workers. Yes, I am comparing the murder and system oppression of gay people. I am also comparing the enslavement and systemic oppression of black people. It seems that your question is why don’t we focus more on the oppression of Asian people? You answered it in your previous reply: > Because Asians are “overrepresented” It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient. > Would you feel the same if you worked your ass off and got rejected but saw people with inferior achievements around you get accepted because of their skin color? If I was your boss and I promoted your black coworker over you because of his skin color wouldn’t you be mad? Don’t dismiss the hard work of millions of high school students applying to college with a simple “being rejected by Harvard”. Yes, my answer would absolutely be the same.

WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago

The person you're responded to stated: "There is no discussion on the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese concentration camps of WWII." You're making their point by disregarding that bit.

PierceJoy 4y ago
I can’t speak to the CEA, but we do teach kids about Japanese internment. Let’s assume that we focus more on black and gay issues though. The parent answered his own question as to why we might focus more on black and gay issues > Because Asians are “overrepresented” It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient.
- WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
  Forgive me for continuing this thread, but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians. They actually use scare quotes when using the word 'overrepresented'. You also disregarded the part of their answer which doesn't seem to include doubt. The full quote is: "Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work." And if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination, then I agree. I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling. I've found this quote with a brief Google search, "The three surveys of American adults consistently indicated that gay men are far more likely than straight men to have graduated from high school or college, with just over half of gay men having earned a college degree, compared with about 35 percent of straight men. Some 6 percent of gay men have a Ph.D., J.D. or M.D. — a rate 50 percent higher than that of straight men." From this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/straight-men-face-educational-crisis-gay-men-excel-academically-study-rcna18018 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/straight-men-face-e...
  - PierceJoy 4y ago
    > but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians They literally wrote that though: > For example, no discussion is given to the fact that...Similarly no discussion is given to the fact that...There is no discussion on the...Why? Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work. > I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling I didn't say they were overrepresented in higher education. This thread isn't specifically about the Harvard problem. It's about the parent thinking that "woke" people only care about discrimination against black, latino, and gay people. I'm saying that the focus is on those groups because they have typically been the most effected by discrimination. If Asian people are overrepresented in what society might call successful careers, then I think it absolutely makes sense to focus on groups that are underrepresented. It's also not at all true that Asian racism is ignored. There was huge outcries when Asians were being assaulted randomly.
    - WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
      I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement. You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here, but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, as you say, so for this reason I assumed higher education was the focus.
      - PierceJoy 4y ago
        > I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement. Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written. > You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here I'm really not. > but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education. Maybe the part you missed is where I stated > It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient. This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education.

ceeplusplus 4y ago

> The question was whether gender/race education has been prioritized over math/science, and if so, did it result in worse math/science education The primary motivation for holding back students _was_ gender/race concerns. It's plainly stated in the GP's linked document and in many other documents on the CA education "reforms" that differentiating students into different tracks is supposedly racist. > What you described has been happening long before anyone cared about gender and race No, it hasn't. State standardized testing has lowered standards, but individual school districts have always been free to move advanced students onto a faster track. I don't know of any high performing school district that actually cared about standardized testing results, because their students were so overprepared for the state tests it didn't matter. > being rejected by Harvard has had on Asian people, and I say this as an Asian person I see you're not familiar with the history of American discrimination towards Asians. Maybe we do need some education in our schools on racism against Asians to teach people like you? You should start with the Wikipedia article on the Chinese Exclusion Act and go from there. I don't see how you can compare gay bashing to literal concentration camps, systemic bans on Chinese immigration, and indentured servitude of Chinese railroad workers. > I say this as an Asian person Would you feel the same if you worked your ass off and got rejected but saw people with inferior achievements around you get accepted because of their skin color? If I was your boss and I promoted your black coworker over you because of his skin color wouldn't you be mad? Don't dismiss the hard work of millions of high school students applying to college with a simple "being rejected by Harvard".

PierceJoy 4y ago
> The primary motivation for holding back students _was_ gender/race concerns. It’s plainly stated in the GP’s linked document and in many other documents on the CA education “reforms” that differentiating students into different tracks is supposedly racist. You say things like “supposedly”. What if it is? > No, it hasn’t. Yes, it has. I witnessed parents complaining about the removal of specialized tracks in the 90’s, in nearly 100% white communities. It had nothing to do with race, and everything do with with parents not wanting to accept that their kid didn’t have the same abilities as other kids. Maybe the focus has changed to race now, but this is nothing new. > I see you’re not familiar with the history of American discrimination towards Asians. Maybe we do need some education in our schools on racism against Asians to teach people like you? People like me? That’s very rude, and very much in bad faith, which is against the HN guidelines. I’ve tried to avoid that language myself, and would appreciate if you did as well. As for me not being familiar, my father was in an internment camp. I'm likely more familiar than you are. > I don’t see how you can compare gay bashing to literal concentration camps, systemic bans on Chinese immigration, and indentured servitude of Chinese railroad workers. Yes, I am comparing the murder and system oppression of gay people. I am also comparing the enslavement and systemic oppression of black people. It seems that your question is why don’t we focus more on the oppression of Asian people? You answered it in your previous reply: > Because Asians are “overrepresented” It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient. > Would you feel the same if you worked your ass off and got rejected but saw people with inferior achievements around you get accepted because of their skin color? If I was your boss and I promoted your black coworker over you because of his skin color wouldn’t you be mad? Don’t dismiss the hard work of millions of high school students applying to college with a simple “being rejected by Harvard”. Yes, my answer would absolutely be the same.