As my finale in this series, I will start with quick review of the past 5 posts, and then launch into a  letter to jerkfaces (yes, a technical term) who are trying to manipulate the facts of this case and try to pit Asian Americans against other people of color. That's right Stephan Thernstrom, I'm talking to you! So, here's the quick review...

• Post 1 - Current UC eligibilty policy
• Post 2 - New UC Entitled to Review (ETR) Policy and predicted demographic impact on who gets to apply to the UC, starting with the Fall 2012 freshmen class.

I do want to say that while every group's ETR/"you can apply to the UC... YAY for you!" numbers go up, the fact that White students becomes such a large proportion in the ETR numbers means that IF they apply in equally increased numbers, then perhaps the admissions numbers for other groups might not be as hot... time will tell... and the UC is obligated to do some serious outreach programs to education folks on the new policy. That leads to...

• Post 3 - We don't know who will be admitted, because that's all contingent on: who will actually apply; and the comprehensive revew policies at each campus, which aren't being changed at all by this policy change.
• Post 4 - We need more detailed data!!!
• Post 5 - (this one may have ruined my career but...) I called out some politicians and an AAPI org... Hey AAPI sisters and brothers, can we talk? We need to get organized!

Now... it's time for a letter to crazy neo-conservatives... I hope you're listening Stephan Thernstrom, et al., because I need to tell you something... Back the F*** UP! That's right, I would like the Thernstrom gang and cronies to take your wrinkly booties and GO AWAY! We AAPI's don't need you manipulating the facts, confusing people, starting rumors, and pitting AAPI's against other people of color... just so you can push your own selfish agenda against institutions doing anything to counteract the racial inequalities in education.  Stop pretending you speak on behalf of our interests! In your National Review Online op-ed, Mr. Thernstrom, you said,

These changes are manifestly driven by the desire to bring in more black and Hispanic students.

You know what I say to that? Good!!! Blacks and Latinos disproportionately attend crappy school districts, thanks to neo-conservatives like you pushing back against successes following Brown v. Board of Education under a manipulative banner of "color blindness" (MLK, Jr. is rolling in his grave!), we now have seriously resegregating schools - an increasingly racially separate and unequal K-12 system. Of course, the fact that AAPI students attend both high performing schools and low performing schools is never brought up in this dialogue, but then again, it's not like we have organized leadership to do that anyway (see Post 5). My point here is that until serious efforts and successes are seen to address the persistent inequalities and racial disparities in our K-12 system, higher education leaders MUST find ways to even the playing field. Looking at how a student has overcome difficult life circumstances and pushed herself to seek and pursue educational opportunities despite their crappy high school shows more pluck and spunk than being captain of 5o clubs if you ask me! If that means there would be fewer economically privileged Asian Americans entering the UC, so that other students of color (including Pacific Islanders and low-income and first generation Asian American college goers) can get a shot at higher education, AS LONG AS White student numbers go down in a similar fashion to Asian American numbers... OK! And another thing, Mr. Thernstrom... Your piece in the National Review doesn't cite any data. It doesn't cite any studies. Is that what passes these days as researched articles in the conservative press? You just state numbers without showing where or how you got them. No explanations. I encourage you to go through my earlier posts to see how the numbers of UC eligible students change. You keep trying to make this an Asian vs. Black/Latino thing... and it's NOT! Even though I haven't agreed 100% with the AAPI Legislative Caucus and other AAPI orgs like Chinese for Affirmative Action in their interpretation of this policy change, they are right in bringing up concerns over Asian numbers going down in favor of WHITES! IT IS NOT AN ASIAN VS. BLACK/LATINO THING! (sorry for the all caps, but I'm trying whatever so you actually hear me... and maybe stop speaking for me!) You also keep trying to make this into an issue about comprehensive review being a tactic to sidestep Prop 209. This new policy IS NOT about comprehensive review. If anything, I would argue that UC admissions should go to 100% comprehensive review for all Entitled to Review students. Let's get rid of all tests, which are known to be racially and class biased. Or let's at least get the campuses to decrease the value they place on tests in their admissions processes. But I gotta say something about your disdain for comprehensive review. You keep trying to make comprehensive review sound like it hurts Asians (example: my old friend and former Regent, John Moores' op-ed in 2004). All you have to do is look at the year when comprehensive review started in the UC - 2002 - and look at the increase of Asian American students admitted (from about 17,000 AAPI admits in 2002 to about 22,000 in 2007; and increases at Berkeley and UCLA - got this from UC Statfinder, a very cool place to get data). ***Once and for all... comprehensive review lets campuses look at students as whole beings and not as walking test scores and GPA's, and... ASIANS BENEFIT FROM COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW... because a lot of us are first-generation college goers, lots are from low-income families, and lots have overcome significant challenges in life! That's right... we're spunky! So again I say... Back the F*** up! What is the deal with ya'll neo-cons always trying to speak on behalf of Asian Americans? Is it a post-Vietnam thing? White guilt? Trying to distract everyone from real dialogue without your lies? Actually... I really don't care. I will ask nicely this time... Please let us speak for ourselves. You may not use us for your own agenda of framing the debate. Yours sincerely, Spam Fried Rice

Average: Select ratingCancel ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

No votes yet