 |
|
| Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
|
|
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: The Social Meaning of Affirmative Action (Score: 1)
by AALFman on Friday, April 11 @ 23:33:33 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | 1. I do not recall that AALF ever stated or implied that Kang or his article supported the anti-preference position. AALF's brief did not use any conclusions Kang reached to support the argument that racial preferences are bad. On p. 5, 6 and 18 of the brief, the only places where Kang's name comes up or his material is used, AALF uses a historical fact cited in Kang's book--i.e. that geographical preferences were put in place at Harvard to keep out Jews. Where the heck did the AALF brief misrepresent his views? Under your grand theory of misrepresentation, someone who cited to a particular chemistry book for the atomic mass of a substance could be accused of misrepresentation if the author didn't agree with their perspectives. Dude, you are so wrong, so just freaking admit it.
2. I was not critiquing Kang's argument, which I believe has intellectual, and only intellectual merit. I was legitimately attacking a grossly negligent at best, malicious at worst, lie published in a public forum. It is your right to lie, or to be grossly careless about the truth, but it is also mine to point it out in an admittedly ungentle way. Note that I did not try to silence you by accusing you of racism--I pointed out, and can conclusively prove, that you were either lying or careless.
3. Again, Kang's "quotes" were literally a historical fact--that Harvard used the pretext of having geographical diversity to keep out Jews just as schools are desperately looking for facially race-neutral ways to make sure their classes have quotas based on race. I am looking at the brief right now--Kang is cited TWICE, and both times for the same historical fact. None of his conclusions were cited, and we never attributed any arguments to him.
4. Your statement that AALF misrepresented Prof. Kang and was specifically formed to support the white students in Grutter was "a publication that is injurious to the reputation of another," that is definitely "false," possibly "unprivilieged," probably "maliciously written" and certainly would tend "to blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to public hatred, contempy, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business or profession." This is straight from Black's Law Dictionary. We were formed to fight for the rights of Asian Americans in the courts, and your gross mischaracterization of my statement of fact, as well as law, as a "veiled threat" of litigation suggests that you are "desperately looking for something to salvage out of a losing and loser position. As a public interest legal foundation, beyond our specific objective, you are quite right that our members claim to serve the public interest, and I for one feel that refuting lies and genuine mischaracterizations and warning the perpetrators of such lies and mischaracterizations does serve the public interest by letting them know that people are watching and that they can be held responsible for their actions and statements. I am hopeful that in the long run, the quality of public debate and discourse will be improved if people are forced to be more thoughtful and careful about what they say and write. Truth is not too much to ask for. |
| Parent |
|
Re: The Social Meaning of Affirmative Action (Score: 1)
by AALFman on Saturday, April 12 @ 00:04:35 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Your latest introductory statement, that AALF was "formed for the specific purpose of conducting a litigation campaign against affirmative action," is still false, misleading, grossly careless, and devoid of truth. Possibly libelous, but less so than the previous statement. We were formed to educate the public about discrimination against Asian Americans, and the discrimination that no one wanted to admit or address was discrimination done in the name of "affirmative action." We support affirmative action, but do not define it as action that requires judgment of individuals based on race or making assumptions about people's perspectives due to their skin color. What is affirmative about disadvantaging the child of Asian dishwashers in a school application process vs. the grandchildren of Colin Powell? Bet you wouldn't be so happy about de jure racial preference, and let's call them what they are, if your child, but for his or her race, was denied admission to school when he or she would have been able to get if they belonged to another ethnic group. For all those privileged pukes praising racial preferences for exposing them to different perspectives, as Justice Scalia pointed out, they got in already. They were not denied opportunity or deprived of rights--some other poor schmuck was denied opportunity and deprived of a fundamental right in order to allow them to experience that wondrous thing -- skin-deep diversity. |
| Parent |
|
|
