Not Apologizing for Not Writing a Non-Story

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-27 00:51

本帖最后由 sweetspot 于 2010-11-27 01:30 编辑

by Henry Yu

Macleans has issued a commentary online where they “regret” that some people (putatively the “Asians” they stereotyped) were offended, but defending their story as good journalism. It was not good journalism. What is particularly offensive about this non-apologetic non-apology is how they have tried to evade the issue. Their statement, rather than dealing with the racist and inflammatory nature of their article, tried to rewrite the intention of their story, disingenuously asserting that their story was in fact a principled stand against the adoption of U.S. inspired admissions caps on Asian Americans. It was no such thing.

Let me state unequivocally--as a professor now teaching at UBC who taught Asian American Studies for 12 years at UCLA, and therefore someone with some knowledge about how Asian Americans have been categorized and racialized in admissions processes in the U.S. as well as how Canadian universities differ in their approach—There is not a single Canadian university considering adopting some form of admissions cap on “Asians.” In fact, it would be practically impossible because our universities in general do not collect that form of information as part of our admissions process. The ethnic breakdown statistics that the Macleans article used from UBC were collected from a survey conducted of first year students who were already admitted. The Macleans suggestion that there are private whispers or discussions of adopting “race based admissions” for Asians in Canada is not only irresponsible journalism through unsubstantiated insinuation but an outright lie. They raise a red herring (Canadian universities considering U.S. policy) and then use the word "perhaps" to say we should “perhaps” not consider it, but there is nothing that is being considered (or dismissed) that they themelves have not invented out of fantasy.

Their article is not, as they claim, a principled anti-racist stand calling for Canada to somehow defend meritocracy against American “race-based admissions.” The main point of their article is the statement--clearly made--that there is a problem on campus caused by so many "Asian" students. That is what the title “Too Asian?” refers to--not a non-existent non-movement by Canadian universities to adopt U.S. policies.

And their absurd claim that the title was borrowed from an “authoritative source”? Let’s just call this what it is—bullshit. If you go to the original article in 2006 that used the title "Too Asian" in the U.S. <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian> , a careful reader will quickly realize that the Macleans story takes the main idea of that story--that Asian Americans only seem to want to apply to prestigious schools and therefore less prestigious schools face a challenge of convincing Asian American parents and students to apply to their schools--and twists it to conveniently become a story about “race based admissions” capping too many Asians. Except for a few exclusive Ivies in the 1980s and 1990s, no school in the U.S. wants "less" Asian American students; in fact they are considered prize students to be recruited, as is indicated in that article.

I taught at UCLA during the debates in the 1990s about removing affirmative action from public universities. I was a graduate student at Princeton when allegations surfaced that the Ivy Leagues were secretly capping Asian American admissions at 15-20%. These were contentious and heated conversations about race and the meaning of meritocracy. There were many different opinions and sometimes the debates were ugly. But the truth is that in regards to Asian Americans not a single university or college in the United States had a publicly stated “race based admissions” policy that limited or put a quota on Asian Americans. Whatever the debates, there was never such thing as a “race based admission” policy in regards to Asian Americans. In fact, part of the complexity of the controversy regarding Ivy League admissions involved the need for activists and scholars to use statistical means to establish that the Ivy Leagues were somehow limiting Asian American enrolments, a fact that Ivy League universities still deny. But if there is a secret policy that is “race based” in the U.S. in regards to Asian Americans, it is not explicitly stated as policy in the way that Macleans implies, nor is any single Canadian university contemplating such a policy in secret or in open. It is disingenuous and nauseating that Macleans raises this non-issue as if they themselves are the white knights riding to the rescue of the “Asian” students that they themselves blame as the problem.

During my years at UCLA, I spent over a decade as a scholar trying to counteract the noxious effects of stereotypes about so-called “overachieving” “model minority” Asian Americans. I counted among allies other scholars and also a large community of political activists, parents, and educators from a wide spectrum of ethnic backgrounds. When I returned to Canada in 2003 to the city where I was born and the university from which I had received my undergraduate degree, I felt a relief to be again at home in a society that had legally enshrined multiculturalism and to teach at a university where mixing and socializing across a wide variety of differences was the norm. Can we do better? Of course. Do we have a problem of being “Too Asian?” I do not even understand the meaning of the question as Macleans has posed it. What is an “Asian?” in their mind? Is it the same definition created by the anonymous pair of girls from Havergal College?

I am sickened that Macleans in the most disingenuous way would claim to be taking a heroic principled stand against “race based admissions” capping “Asian” enrolments, as if anyone other than their own magazine was contemplating it for Canada. Over a century ago, William Randolph Hearst perfected “yellow journalism,” a way of selling newspapers through outrageous and sensationalist headlines. Race-baiting was a common technique in yellow journalism, and in California a series of newspapers owned by Valentine McClatchy used anti-Asian headlines to incite the movement to disenfranchise and exclude Chinese and Japanese immigrants. The “Too Asian?” headline that Macleans used, and more importantly the non-existent Asian “problem” that they themselves invented, could have come right out of one of those rags. They should be ashamed of using it, and they should be even more ashamed of foisting responsibility off on the “Americans” that they falsely accuse, as if they had no responsibility for creating the headline. Words matter, and no matter how you spin and twist their meaning, you cannot re-invent what was written for all to read. Macleans f---ed up. Own up to it and stop pretending that you were saying the opposite of what you actually wrote.

Dr. Henry Yu is a professor of history at the University of British Columbia. He is currently writing a book entitled “Pacific Canada,” which argues for a perspective on our society that recognizes the inequities of our past and rebuilds in a collaborative manner a new approach to our common history and future together.

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-27 00:53

Too Asian?

October 10, 2006

"Rachel, for an Asian, has many friends."

That's the kind of line that apparently is turning up more and more in letters of recommendation on behalf of Asian American applicants to top colleges, according to experts on a panel called "Too Asian?" at the annual meeting of the National Association for College Admission Counseling.

When the recommendation line was cited as the kind of bias -- even perhaps well intentioned bias -- that pervades the admissions process, many in the audience at first seemed angry that in 2006 people would reference race in that way. But when it came time for audience comments, one high school counselor said that counselors feel they have no choice but to mention students' Asian status and to try to make it seem like their Asian students are different from other Asian students.

"We make those comparisons because we feel it's the only way we can get through and get our students looked at," said the counselor, to knowing nods from others in the audience.

Many Asian students and their families have for years believed that quotas or bias hinder their chances at top Ivy or California universities. But to listen to panelists -- and members of a standing room only audience -- the intensity of concern has grown, as has mistrust of the system.

In the discussion at the NACAC meeting, participants tried to talk frankly about Asian students' perceptions and colleges' perception of Asians -- with several people admitting that they were simultaneously denouncing stereotypes and saying that some of them had at least partial truth that colleges and high schools need to confront.

Admissions officers, while defending the overall integrity of the system, admitted that bias is a real problem. And advocates for Asian students admitted that they are challenged by the many Asian families who want to consider only a subset of institutions.

Many counselors -- during and after the session -- said that they have little doubt that when applying for undergraduate admission to research universities, white applicants are getting admitted with lower test scores and grades than Asian applicants are. One high school guidance counselor told the panel of experts that a sign of the distrust of the system is that he is increasingly asked by Asian American students if they would be better off applying to college if they declined to check the race/ethnicity box on the applications.

Jon Reider, a counselor at University High School, in San Francisco, urged the questioner to encourage students to continue to check the box, and he questioned whether leaving the box would do much good. "If your name is Wong....." he said to laughter. But he also noted that one of the many ways Asian Americans today don't fit stereotypes is in their names. The Asian American woman on the panel -- and admissions official at Colorado College -- was named Rachel Cederberg.

The prompt for the discussion was an article that ran last year in The Wall Street Journal about "the new white flight." The article reported that white families were leaving some nice suburbs with great public schools -- or sending their children to private schools -- as districts became "too Asian," apparently meaning districts where after-school academic programs are more popular than soccer. While the school districts about which the article was written have criticized the piece, many at the NACAC meeting said that the attitudes quoted in the article were real -- and were playing a big impact in college admissions.

Reider said he thought the article and the question of "Too Asian?" that it posed was "shameful" and said that he was "embarrassed" as an American that such a piece would appear today. He asked whether anyone would think of publishing an article called "Too Latino?" and compared the bias to the kind of bigotry that for decades limited the enrollment of Jewish students at top private universities. "This is a racist question," he said.

He also said that the bias is real -- and cited his experience in his previous job as part of the admissions office at Stanford University. There, he said, the office did a study some years ago in which it compared Asian and white applicants with the same overall academic and leadership rankings. The study was only of "unhooked kids," meaning those with no extra help for being an alumni child or an athlete. The study found that comparably qualified white applicants were "significantly" more likely to be admitted than their Asian counterparts.

Stanford's admissions office responded with some serious self-reflection, he said, and officials now spend some time each year studying different kinds of bias -- like letters that compare Asian applicants to other Asians -- in an attempt to weed out any unfair judgments. With bias removed, he said, "there's no way that a school or college can be considered too Asian."

At the same time, he and others said that part of the problem in admissions today is created by Asian applicants -- and especially their parents -- who tend to accept only certain colleges as legitimate options.

Colorado College, where Cederberg now works, has an Asian population under 10 percent -- a figure that is quite typical for liberal arts colleges. Asian students are considered to add to diversity to the college and she has the full support of the college in recruiting them, she said.

Based on working with institutions where Asian enrollment exceed 25 percent -- something that is increasingly common at elite publics in California and top universities elsewhere -- she said she hears lots of talk about admissions officers who complain about "yet another Asian student who wants to major in math and science and who plays the violin" or people who say "I don't want another boring Asian."

She said she wishes more Asian students would look at liberal arts colleges. A broader problem, several speakers said, was an emphasis on just a few kinds of institutions.

Mike White, principal of Lynbrook High School, in one of the districts The Wall Street Journal wrote about, said that he has a very tough time persuading Asian students to look at the California State University campuses, including nearby San Jose State University, which has many academic programs in areas his students want to study.

If they don't get into the University of California campus of choice or Stanford, he said, many prefer to enroll at a community college and transfer to a UC campus rather than attending a Cal State campus. White stressed that he didn't mean to be critical of community colleges, but that it struck him that his students were ignoring institutions that were a good match -- just because the institutions didn't have a perceived level of prestige.

Reider described an exercise he does for Asian parents in which he tells them about two institutions. At one, he describes walking through a beautify campus, meeting a president who knows all the students by name, seeing labs that are first rate, and learning that science students are admitted to top graduate and professional programs, based in part on their original research. At the other institution, he describes how he meets a smart science student frustrated that he can't get any work done because of the loud music down the hall. When Reider walks down the hall, a student blaring music tells him it's a party school.

After he describes the two campuses, he says he tells the parents "you'd want your kids at the first school, right?" They agree. Then he tells them that the first institution was Whitman College (although he quickly adds that it could have been a few dozen other liberal arts colleges) and the second institution was Harvard University. And then, he said, the parents all say that they were wrong when they answered the question the first time, and they still want their kids at Harvard.
— Scott Jaschik

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-27 00:54

The original “Too Asian”? article: Too Asian? Published on October 10, 2006 –
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian

Comments section:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian#Comments

拒接受《麥克琳》辯解抗議團體：不道歉不罷休
社論稱《太亞裔化》文章無意冒犯
http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/news/20101126/tab1.htm

Green Leader Elizabeth May’s statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSY0ZdR90EA
Asian, whatever that means
http://www.vancouverobserver.com ... sian-whatever-means

University Admissions: How many Asian-Americans are too many?
http://www.8asians.com/2010/02/2 ... icans-are-too-many/

Can’t See The Forest For The (Bonsai) Trees
http://unambig.com/tag/too-asian/

Maclean's calls universities "too Asian"
http://www.charlatan.ca/content/ ... versities-too-asian

Are we actually ‘Too Asian’? A look into the MacLean’s article and the stir behind it.
http://iwarrior.uwaterloo.ca/201 ... the-stir-behind-it/

Not White Enough: What the Maclean’s article says about our country and our schools.
http://etiquette-etc.tumblr.com/post/1607948924

DISGRASIAN OF THE WEAK! ‘Too Asian?’
http://disgrasian.com/2010/11/disgrasian-of-the-weak-too-asian/
Too Asian? Canada Gets Racial Stereotypes Wrong. Again.
http://crushable.com/other-stuff ... otypes-wrong-again/

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-27 00:57

Maclean's has posted this editorial online.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/25/who-gets-into-university/

from Maclean's:
Merit: the best and only way to decide who gets into university

We find the trend toward race-based admissions policies in some U.S. schools to be deplorable
by macleans.ca on Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:30am - 5 Comments
Merit: the best and only way to decide who gets into university

Photograph by Colin O'Connor

Maclean’s annual University Rankings issue is our most popular and most discussed magazine of the year. The 2010 edition, released two weeks ago, was no exception. Alongside our comprehensive rankings of Canadian schools, we also tackled the biggest issues facing today’s university students. There were stories dealing with school stress, problem roommates, difficult school choices and sex. And when students told us race is becoming a conversation on Canadian campuses, we took a closer look at that as well.

Our reporters Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Köhler spoke to university students, professors and administrators about campus racial balance and its implications. The resulting story was titled: ”‘Too Asian?’: a term used in the U.S. to talk about racial imbalance at Ivy League schools is now being whispered on Canadian campuses—by everyone but the students themselves, who speak out loud and clear.”

The article has generated a great deal of response, a representative sample of which is included in this week’s Letters (page six). Some of the comments we have seen on the Internet and in other media have suggested that by publishing this article, Maclean’s views Canadian universities as “Too Asian,” or that we hold a negative view of Asian students.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As our story relates, the phrase “Too Asian?” is a direct quote from the title of a panel discussion at the 2006 meeting of the National Association for College Admission Counseling where experts examined the growing tendency among U.S. university admission officers to view Asian applicants as a homogenous group. The evidence suggests some of the most prestigious schools in the U.S. have abandoned merit as the basis for admission for more racially significant—and racist—criteria.

We find the trend toward race-based admission policies in some American schools deplorable, as do many of our readers. Our article notes that Canadian universities select students regardless of race or creed. That, in our view, is the best and only acceptable approach: merit should be the sole criteria for entrance to higher education in Canada, and universities should always give preference to our best and brightest regardless of cultural background. This position was stated clearly in the article: “Canadian institutions operate as pure meritocracies when it comes to admissions, and admirably so,” reporters Findlay and Köhler wrote.

Through hard work, talent and ambition, Asian students have been highly successful in earning places in Canada’s institutions of higher learning. They, like all of our high achievers, deserve respect and admiration. Every one of them is a source of pride to their fellow Canadians.

One final note about the headline. Although the phrase “Too Asian?” was a question and, again, a quotation from an authoritative source, it upset many people. We expected that it would be provocative, but we did not intend to cause offence.

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-27 01:05

Monday, November 15, 2010

Why Maclean’s and Racism Should No Longer Define our Nation

by Henry Yu

Thirty years after CTV aired its infamous W5 program “Campus Giveaway” insinuating that Canadian universities had too many “Asians” and therefore too many “foreigners,” Maclean’s magazine in its annual university rankings issue last week cynically again used racial stereotypes to invent a non-issue, asking why “white” Canadians think some of our top universities are “too Asian.” Buried amidst the article’s inflammatory racial profiling was an attempt at good reporting, which made Macleans’ appeal to “race” even more sad.

The journalists interviewed a wide array of people; however, rather than addressing the worry among our younger generation about how hard they need to work in school when so much of their future relies upon the grades and rankings they receive, the editors decided to bury any insights they had acquired underneath a racist logic of “Asian” versus “white.” They created the fearsome spectre of too many “Asian” students who were somehow both overachieving and tragically marred by social awkwardness. They then blamed these students for the lack of dialogue (and cross-racial partying) on campuses.

The title “Too Asian”? draws upon over a century of racist politics using the term “Asian” to flatten everyone who looks “Oriental” into a single category which is somehow threatening to “white” Canadians. Have we not advanced enough to recognize that people with black hair who do not look like their families came from Europe can still be “Canadian,” rather than the assumption of the writers that “Asian” is the opposite of “born in Canada”? Judging from the first 300 comments on Maclean’s’ online edition, almost every single one of which in dismissing the article as being pointless and inflammatory was more articulate and intelligent about the dangers of racial stereotyping than the authors, I see hope in a younger generation of Canadians who have enough sense to understand that an “open dialogue” about race requires first and foremost avoiding the easy analysis of lumping in a wide variety of people into simplistic categories such as “Asian” and “white.” Each day in my classes I hear intelligent and humane dialogues between students of every colour and from everywhere around the world, something that makes UBC and other Canadian universities special places that seemingly have better sense than the Maclean’s newsroom.

In referring to characterizations of Asian Americans in the United States as a “model minority” in the 1980s and 1990s and the ugly attempts in some private universities in the U.S. during that period to quietly cap enrolments of those considered “Asian,” the article implied this “American” solution to campuses being “too Asian” should be dismissed as un-Canadian and against our meritocratic admission policy. What the authors fail to realize is that they have accepted throughout their own article the fundamental racist premise that was being made in the U.S., the characterization of all “Asians” as overachievers who threaten “white” students. There are plenty of mediocre, hard drinking, unintelligent students out there, and there are a large number of hard working, ambitious, students worried about whether their investment in higher education will actually pay off after they graduate.

One of the issues the authors did not pick up from the debates in the United States was the underlying question of what characterized higher education as an engine of democracy and social mobility, and the crucial role of universities in creating the next generation of leaders. On many U.S. campuses, intelligent dialogues revolved not around whether there were “too many Asians” on campus, but more interesting and important questions such as how to produce doctors or lawyers who could serve the diverse needs of American society, or whether an arts education should be measured with the same financial logic of business school. If higher education is only a financial investment now for a higher income in the future, how impoverished as a society will we become?

We should be asking how our campus communities can be improved, and we should understand the diverse backgrounds of our students and how racial stereotypes continue to have salience. Racist questions obscure the important issues facing us. Talking about race involves seeing through the generalizations and understanding what is actually happening.

Until recently in its history, Canada had a history of white supremacy similar to South Africa and the American South, building its immigration policy around the racial category of “white Canada,” passing a wide array of discriminatory laws that disenfranchised those considered “non-whites,” and creating widespread racial segregation in jobs and housing. The category of “white” was used to glue together European migrants of many different backgrounds and as a political organizing tool, often using racial categories such as “Oriental,” “Asian,” “Jew,” or “Native” in contrast. We are still left with legacies of this history, including the unquestioned assumption that the term “Canadian” is interchangeable with “white Canadian.” Like a Molson Canadian television commercial, this lingering vision of Canada as uniformly white is so commonplace that we still think of it as the norm—we rarely ask whether a certain neighborhood or community or school might be “too white.” Why is there an issue of “race” only when a community or university is becoming “too Asian?”

Our society no longer looks like the beer-drinking, all-white camaraderie of a Molson Canadian commercial. Perhaps it never did, and white supremacy always needed to hide away into reservations and ghettoes all those who did not fit into the vision of “White Canada Forever,” which white supremacists sang a century ago. When large waves of European refugees came to Canada after World War II, they had little choice but to blend into a generic whiteness and an Anglo-conformity in language and manners that allowed them to be accepted as Canadian. All of the rewards of a still segregated society were available to those who would adapt, since Canada was still slowly dismantling laws that relegated “non-whites” to second-class citizenship.

We still live with many of the legacies of that slow dismantling of our own apartheid, and one of them is the racist presumption that the Maclean’s authors too easily accept, that the term “Asian” somehow captures a truth about people who have black hair and “Oriental” facial features. There are vast differences among “Asians,” and so the next time you see people with black hair in a group, realize that they might be learning a lot about the differences and similarities they have with each other, and rather than blaming them for “self-segregating,” go think a bit more about why you assume they are all the same.

Dr. Henry Yu is a professor of history at the University of British Columbia. He is currently writing a book entitled “Pacific Canada,” which argues for a perspective on our society that recognizes the inequities of our past and rebuilds in a collaborative manner a new approach to our common history and future together.

end

November 11, 2010 online version

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-27 01:09

This article was published on Nov 22, 2010 in the Comment section
The Maclean’s “Too Asian?” article was a poorly written attempt to discuss legitimate issues facing university students
Dylan C. Robertson

Are there too many Asians at U of T?

An article published in Maclean’s’ annual university rankings guide has provoked many heated arguments for giving attention to this question. The article focuses on a disproportionate number of students of East Asian origin at elite universities, including immigrants, exchange students, and young people with deep roots in Canada.

Opening with the story of a student who avoided U of T because of its large Asian population, the article explores stereotypes of studious, austere Asian students who self-segregate from predominantly middle-class white kids who like getting drunk and, for the most part, can’t compete with “those” braniacs.

Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Köhler touch on sociological reasons for the prominence of ethnic groups in academia and compares contemporary discriminatory policies against Asians with those held against Jews in the early twentieth century.

The feature ends by suggesting universities ought to do more to bridge gaps between ethnic groups on campus. Our own provost and president are quoted in the article, claiming U of T is a harmonious institution, a “rainbow nation” with lots of functional diversity.

The article was subject to angry criticisms, calling it sensationalist, racist and — worst of all — crappy journalism. But not before The Toronto Star jumped on the bandwagon.

The normally earnest Star was slammed for publishing a front-page, above-fold article linked with the Maclean’s feature, focusing on a Chinese-Canadian group urging parents not to force their children into university.

The Star received a plethora of similar criticism.

Both articles, and the resulting controversy, have highlighted three things. First, we are a society profoundly and unhealthfully uncomfortable talking about race. Second, both media outlets missed the fundamental issue behind this phenomenon. Third, the real issue is that universities are not one-size-fits-all institutions and way too many Canadians are attending them.

Universities are about academia. They are intended to be institutions based on critical thought and a free exchange of ideas. Completing an undergraduate degree is supposed to mean one is qualified to pursue graduate studies. While the insight gained during studies can be used in a career, university education has never been about providing practical skills to the general population.

alt text Ontario high-schoolers in the academic (as opposed to applied) stream are bred to go to university. Although college and other options are mentioned, the focus of many guidance counsellors dealing with Grade 12 students is getting their university applications completed by deadline.

Thousands of students drop out of university every year after realizing it’s not meant for them. This is a huge waste of time, money, and motivation. Universities, especially U of T, are crowded for various reasons, one of them being the huge number of students, not all of whom belong at university. One reason why plagiarism and cheating take place is that some students don’t belong in the university system and are struggling just to get by.

Young people, middle-class whites or not, who want a booze-filled easy ride to a well-paying job don’t belong in university. Children of immigrants who want careers outside of academia don’t belong in university. We need to take university off its pedestal as a status-granting institution for higher incomes and social inclusion.

The proper way for The Star to have reported the story on the disproportion of East Asian students would involve looking at students being coerced by parents and teachers into university, and certain careers, when they are better suited for other options. The reporting could mention the report by concerned Chinese parents and suggest the problem is more prominent among certain communities.

Although there are exceptions, such as polytechnic institutions in Québec, post-secondary education in Canada is largely a duality of universities and colleges. With little in between, we are left with university programs that try to be practical with limited success, and college programs that aren’t sufficiently theoretical.

OCAD University, a degree-granting university for decades, recently added the latter part onto their name. But why would a practical arts school be a university? Theory is taught, but students regularly produce their own art. OCAD being a university doesn’t make sense; it’s actually practical.

In comparison to some European countries, our system of two choices, university and college, is too narrow. Canadian students would be better served by a variety of options, by schools that cater to their career goals and learning habits. Otherwise, we continue to waste society’s time and resources on a vision of universities that doesn’t make sense.

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-27 01:26

Maclean’s, Margaret Wente, and the Canadian media’s inarticulacy about race
By Jeet HeerNovember 24th, 2010
2Share

Maclean’s, Margaret Wente, and the Canadian media’s inarticulacy about race
Maclean's

Perhaps Americans talk too much about race, but Canadians have the opposite problem. From Frederick Douglass to Ruth Benedict to Martin Luther King to César Chávez to Toni Morrison, our neighbours to the south have a robust and complex tradition of tackling race head-on in public discourse. Canada has its own racial and ethnic divides — and a distinctive habit of stammering incoherently when confronted with civil rights issues. The latest evidence of Canadian inarticulateness on this crucial topic is the now-notorious Maclean’s article “‘Too Asian?’” (from the magazine’s 2010 university ranking issue), as well as yesterday’s defence of the newsweekly offered by Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente.

“I’m much more offended by bad editing than I am by xenophobia,” I wrote in an email to a friend when I first read the Maclean’s article. What I meant was that the article, co-written by Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Köhler, was a classic case of ruining an important topic by packaging it in a sensationalistic and ham-fisted fashion. I actually think the authors and editors meant well when they started the piece, which contains some excellent reporting about race relations on the Canadian campus. Unfortunately, as is the magazine’s habit of late, Maclean’s dressed up the topic in an attention-grabbing tabloid manner, so that instead of being an examination of racism it became an example of xenophobia.

The problems with the Maclean’s article are many and systematic. I’ve already discussed them here and here. Briefly, the article leaves a bad aftertaste because:

1. The word “Asian” is used in a very broad way to encompass both foreign-born exchange students (who are in Canada temporarily) and Canadians who have ancestors in countries such as China, Japan, and Korea. By this usage, David Suzuki, Olivia Chow, Adrienne Clarkson, and Sook-Yin Lee are all notable Asians, rather than notable Canadians or notable Asian-Canadians. Moreover the distinct problems faced by exchange students (linguistic hurdles, social isolation) are quite different from the experiences of Asian-Canadians. How could Chinese-Canadian kids who read the article not feel like foreigners in their native land?

2. The article stereotypes both white Canadian students and “Asian” students. White Canadians students are portrayed as privileged preppies who are more interested in partying and drinking than studying. “Asian” students are portrayed as socially dysfunctional nerds who lack any sense of fun, virtual robots who are programmed by their parents to study.

As someone who has done a little teaching and spent far too much time in school, I have to say these two stereotypes are violently at odds with the real diversity of personality types that you find on Canadian campuses, among students of all different races and backgrounds. It’s notable that the Maclean’s article completely erases the existence of working class white Canadian students, many of whom face the same educational problems of balancing work and studying that often bedevil immigrant students. Also ignored is the fact that many “white” students in Canada also come from immigrant backgrounds, notably from Southern and Eastern Europe.

By highlighting race and ignoring class, Maclean’s makes it harder to see the commonalities that many students of diverse backgrounds share. Throughout the article, it is assumed that the experience of upper–middle class white kids is normative — and that every other experience (whether working class white Canadian or “Asian”) has to be defined against that norm.

3. Finally, Maclean’s frames the problem as one that is caused by the mere presence of “Asians” on campus, rather than by the social and cultural barriers that divide students. For example, in the rankings issue’s table of contents, Maclean’s has this headline: “Asian advantage?” The question mark is a typical example of Maclean’s trying to cover an inflammatory statement by qualifying it. However, if you read the article, it becomes clear that the only “advantage” that “Asians” have is that many of them study “hard,” which is what all students should do. The idea that doing homework is an “advantage” is built on the assumption that whites are entitled to university spaces whether they study or not, simply on the basis of their whiteness — or perhaps because they are real Canadians, unlike the “Asians” who happen to live here.

If the Maclean’s article is troublingly xenophobic, then Margaret Wente’s defence is a classic case of obfuscation.

Speaking last Friday on the CBC radio program Q, Wente said that all Maclean’s did was make public “the simple fact that Asian kids are disproportionately represented on some campuses, especially at the U of T and in BC.” Wente, in both this interview and her subsequent column, refused to address the critique made by several writers about the xenophobic way that Maclean’s has framed the debate.

“The growing Asian presence on North American campuses is a big story — culturally, demographically, politically,” Wente wrote in yesterday’s paper. “It’s also a story that pits some of our most cherished values against each other. We believe that our public universities should broadly reflect society. We also believe they should be meritocratic. But what if those two values collide?”

First of all, it’s never been the case that Canadian universities have “broadly reflect[ed] society.” For the vast majority of Canadian history, our public universities have been disproportionately Anglo, male, and upper class. The great democratization of higher education in the 1960s and 1970s started to change this situation, but all sorts of groups are still “disproportionately” underrepresented in higher education. These groups include members of Canada’s First Nations, the working class, and many ethnic groups. As the Maclean’s article noted, “70 percent of students in the Toronto District School Board who immigrated from East Asia went on to university, compared to 52 percent of Europeans, the next highest group, and 12 percent of Caribbean, the lowest.”

The flip side of overrepresentation is underrepresentation. If we believe that universities should “broadly reflect society,” then underrepresentation is a much larger problem than overrepresentation. Instead of asking how we can help more First Nations people or working class Canadians or Caribbean-Canadians gain access to higher education, we’re stuck debating the supposed overrepresentation of “Asians” in a handful of programs at three Canadian universities. There are all sorts of public policies that could help underrepresented groups make it to university. An intensive program of early childhood education, for one thing, would be a boon. But neither Maclean’s nor Wente are interested in such policies. The pseudo-problem of “too Asian” is used to hide the genuine issue: that real barriers to higher education remain for some groups.

Wente speaks in broad terms about “the rise of the Asian campus.” Let’s be clear what the “Asian campus” means: a plurality or majority of Asian-Canadian students in a few departments (mostly the sciences) in three universities (Toronto, Waterloo, British Columbia). The phrase “Asian campus” inaccurately describes the vast majority of departments in the vast majority of Canadian universities. Meanwhile, a search of the online database ProQuest reveals that the Globe and Mail has used the phrase “white campus” three times in the last three decades, all in articles about apartheid-era South Africa. So by the Globe’s usage, a predominately white campus is never a white campus except under a blatantly racist regime. On the other hand, a university with a few predominately Asian-Canadian departments must be an “Asian campus.”

Of course, the “Asian campus” is only a problem if you believe that Asian-Canadians are not real Canadians. In the United States, there are people like Sarah Palin who make a distinction between “real Americans” (i.e., animal-killing Alaskans) and Americans who are somehow less real (i.e., liberals, New Yorkers, vegetarians). The subtext of both “‘Too Asian?’” and Wente’s defence of it is a similar distinction between Canadians whose presence in universities is natural and those Canadians who, even if they were born in Canada, are seen as alien intruders.

In her column, Wente wrote that “nobody is talking about quotas.” This is flatly untrue. Maclean’s raised the issue of anti-Asian quotas in the United States and offered this slippery statement: “Canadian universities, apart from highly competitive professional programs and faculties, don’t quiz applicants the same way, and rely entirely on transcripts. Likely that is a good thing. And yet, that meritocratic process results, especially in Canada’s elite university programs, in a concentration of Asian students.”

I don’t know how this passage can be read as anything except a claim that meritocracy is a provisional (or “likely”) good thing, which might need to be abandoned since it leads to a putatively bad result — i.e., “a concentration of Asian students.” Maclean’s did not advocate quotas, but it has opened the door to the possibility that they might be needed, a likelihood that feels all the more urgent in an article full of scary stories about universities being overstuffed with “Asian” kids.

An annoying thing about Wente’s writing, on this topic and others, is her pose of being an injured truth teller, a Cassandra whose honest words will be ignored to the peril of society. She has asserted that the “rise of the Asian campus… introduces a variety of important social questions. We shouldn’t be too timid to discuss them.” Is it worth pointing out that Maclean’s is a national newsweekly and not a samizdat? Moreover, Margaret Wente has a column in a national newspaper. She is not Solzhenitsyn during the era of Brezhnev.

In fact, there’s been a silence on this issue caused by the unwillingness of the media to give room to the critics of Maclean’s. A prominent newsweekly unleashed a remarkably xenophobic article, yet the response from its peers has largely been avoidance or support. Minelle Mahtani published a good-but-limited critique in the Globe, and I wrote a piece for the National Post, as did Tasha Kheiriddin. The vast majority of public debate on “‘Too Asian?’” has taken place on blogs and Twitter, surely evidence of a media culture that’s afraid to critique itself. This past Monday, Q tried to organize a debate on this issue, but Maclean’s refused to send anyone (either the writers of the article or an editor) to engage with me. Further, the Globe declined my request to write a rebuttal to Wente’s column. So if anyone is being “timid” here, it is Maclean’s and those who defend it.

The best way to think about this issue is to realize that both Maclean’s and Wente are playing a game. The name of that game is called “getting attention.” You win by talking about issues in a provocative but dishonest way that is designed to push people’s buttons. Then, if and when you are challenged, you claim that critics who are trying to engage you in a conversation are actually silencing you. The most successful players of this game are those who don’t care about public policy or the real consequences of ideas. At the core of this exercise is a kind of childish nihilism.

But the childish nihilists only dominate discourse because the larger Canadian media are inarticulate about race. Fearing to raise racial issues, we’ve let our public discourse be taken over by our most irresponsible, atavistic, and sensation-mongering voices.

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-29 15:05

本帖最后由 sweetspot 于 2010-11-29 15:28 编辑

大学「太亚裔化」论移民部长直斥荒谬

据明报讯，《麦克琳》杂志一篇探讨本国大学「太亚裔化」(Too Asian)的报道的风波愈闹愈热，继本国华裔参议员利德蕙上周三(24日)在参议院上作出谴责之后，联邦公民、移民及多元文化部长康尼(Jason Kenney)昨日也就事件作出回应，指探讨本国亚裔学生人数多少是荒谬的做法，不同族裔社区对本国都有不同方面的贡献。

卑诗省维多利亚市议会通过动议致函《麦克琳》表关注指文章被视为种族主义

康尼昨日在密西沙加市出席一项联邦移民部的宣布活动时，不讳言该杂志的报道有
问题，因为点出本国大学的亚裔学生太多或太少，是荒谬(ridiculous)的做法。

康尼称，就其经验所知，亚裔是很好的学生，他们较多入读大学，可能是由于他们
有较好的成绩。他并不明白(该杂志)为何要批评人们勤学而取得学业成功的现象。

康尼赞亚裔移民科学优秀

康尼并指出，每个(族裔)社区其实都(对本国)带来独有的天赋、技能及能力。其中，
很多亚裔移民都献身于教育或学习，尤其是在科学方面，这肯定是有助建造本国繁
荣的未来。

与此同时，这宗在多伦多点起火头的风波，已蔓延至西岸，卑诗省维多利亚市议会
上周通过由该市市议员Charlayne Thornton-Joe提出的动议，写信给《麦克琳》杂
志，表达对其文章标题的关注，以及该文有些内容会被人视为有种族主义的性质。

平权会全国总干事黄煜文(图)昨晚说，维多利亚市议会是全国第一个采取这样的行
动的市议会，他感激其支持，并敦促其他的市议会采取同样行动，要《麦克琳》杂
志为其言论负责。

Charlayne Thornton-Joe在其动议中指出，《麦克琳》杂志有关文章的标题为「太
亚裔化」(Too Asian)只能被描绘为有冒犯性及不具容忍性；而该文宣扬种族定型，
暗示在一些大学，亚裔学生可能限制了非亚裔学生的机会。

动议又指出，维多利亚市在过去150年中，能分享到丰富的亚裔传统，是十分幸运的
事，对拥有全加拿大最古老的唐人街而感到自豪。

此外，维多利亚市及其余的加拿大，都从文化多元性得到益处，特别是提供多种意
念、观点、以及辩论的高等学府。此所以维多利亚市参加了加国市政府反对种族主
义及歧视联盟，支持多元文化及多元化。

Charlayne Thornton-Joe在其动议中又指出，假如动议获得通过，市议会将会要求
《麦克琳》杂志确实其对加拿多元文化社会，以及其他令到国家得益，以及在加强
本国重视和平及容忍的价值。

东西两地大学生相继组织行动

黄煜文又表示，大学生也行动起来了，在上周，有200多名大学生在卑诗大学参加论
坛，而多伦多大学学生及青年联盟今晚也举办论坛，相讨行动。

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-29 15:18

UBC symposium on anti-Asian racism finds Maclean's "Too Asian?" too insensitive
Zi-Ann Lum
Posted: Nov 27th, 2010

Two weeks ago, I wrote a commentary in response to Maclean’s “Too Asian?” Since then, many voices have chimed in from left, right, and centre to offer their two cents. Aside from a brief non-apology released yesterday, minimal effort has been done by Maclean’s or Rogers to remedy the offense that “Too Asian?” has caused readers.

On November 25th, the University of British Columbia held a campus dialogue organized in response to an overwhelming interest from students in wake of the focus on Asian students after the publication of “Too Asian?” Not even the generous snowfall from the night before prevented the large room from filling up to capacity. The forum featured a panel made up of a mix of distinguished faculty and administration members as well as two undergraduate students. It was refreshing to be in an environment where the objective was to engage in a safe constructive dialogue about stereotyping in media.

Brian Sullivan, Vice-President, Students at UBC opened the dialogue by addressing the issue as one “not about admissions” nor was it about “unhappiness over the way that students choose to associate or to be engaged.” Sullivan added, “(students) are experts of their own experience” and that this episode is fundamentally about “people” and “about learning.”

Panelist Dr. Kerry Jang, Professor, UBC Psychiatry and Vancouver City Councilor, shared a story about his own upbringing; of how his grandfather arrived in British Columbia and paid the Chinese head tax and how emphasizing his Canadian citizenship was more important than identifying with his Chinese heritage. “You had to be as non-Chinese as possible,” Jang said, “so I kind of grew up being kind of non-Chinese but being reminded that I was Chinese every so often. We went back and forth with this kind of thing. So quite frankly, I didn’t know how to react when I read the article.” Jang’s sentiments echo with many Canadian-born and naturalized Asians who read the Maclean’s article but were caught in-between cultural worlds and thus, did not know how to react.

“This article harkens back to an older Canada,” explains panelist Dr. Henry Yu, Associate Professor, Department of History and Principle pro tem at St. Johns College, UBC. “It’s also a hurtful article for a lot of people. And in fact, the irony is if you just arrived from Asia, if someone says, ‘You’re so Asian’ – well of course, I was born in Asia.” Yu doesn’t fail to recognize the distinction between Asian international students and domestic Asian-Canadian students, an acknowledgment that Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Kohler did not care to make nor did the Maclean’s editorial team care to include.

However, the international student is “not the person who’s actually going to feel hurt the most,” Yu continues, “You know who’s going to hurt the most? The person who tried really hard in elementary school and high school to fit in. The person who, like me, thought ‘maybe if I’m captain of the basketball team, it’ll be okay. Maybe if I really work hard to fit in.’ But then every once in a while someone calls you ‘rice’.”

“It’s the feeling of ‘what else do you want me to do?’ You say I don’t fit in – I do everything to fit in- and then you say I don’t fit in. And that’s the hurt.”

Canadian universities have changed significantly in the past four decades. It is should be of no surprise that the children of Asian immigrants and first-generation Asian-Canadians are entering university. It was a surprise for me to see a national magazine adhere to a dangerous discourse to choose not recognize their Canadian identities, but as Asian and as “others.”

As a UBC student and a regular consumer of news media, what I have witnessed in these past two weeks are many reputable journalists bickering with one another, arguing about semantic senses and references, pointing fingers at each other’s observations, and arguing the merits of “Too Asian?” in Canada. Conservative pundits are too busy crying “not racist” instead of listening and investigating why Canadians have reacted to this article with such emotion and anger. Student journalism and alternative media coverage on this controversy is far out-shining the articles and commentaries offered by seasoned writers like The Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente, or The National Post’s Barbara Kay and Tony Keller. They do not bear significant weight because they all recycle the same UC Berekley example, the same statistical racial breakdown of UBC (UBC is the only Canadian institution that collects this data from voluntary post-admissions surveys), and the same casual “it’s not racist if it’s true” attitude.

Dr. Candis Callison, Assistant Professor at UBC’s School of Journalism and panelist, explained from a journalistic standpoint, why the article was troublesome and misleading. First, the writers began the piece by framing a discussion about diversity and admissions with two anonymous party girls - a unusual case since anonymity is typically granted only when a source’s life is in danger. The second problem is within the choice of title. As a linguistics student, the use of the degree adverb “too” is problematic as it alludes to the view that “x” is exceeding “normal” levels. And in the title that Maclean’s chose, that “x” was “Asian.” If Maclean’s had truly not meant to publish an article that held a negative view of Asian students, they would have been more careful with the end choice of “Too Asian?”

“Journalism is not just about highlighting tensions or pointing out tensions,” Callison reminds the full room, “but it’s in fact about disentangling the conflict of values.” Rather than instinctively falling back to the old formula of dividing the dialogue into non-constructive exchanges between “us” and “them” and strategizing ineffective ways to coexist as “we” and “you” – more efforts like those taken upon UBC to provide a safe environment for open dialogue need to be made.

One of the first things that you learn in psychology is that correlation does not mean causation. The claims made in the Maclean’s article that Asian students are anti-social academic drones and that Caucasian students are party-hungry academic slackers was problematic because the data it used to was questionable and absent in places. Correlation does not mean causation. Earlier in the discussion, Brian Sullivan made a great point and identified that “the largest single impediment we know from US students to your being able to associate when you want, with whom you want, and the depth you want, is the length of your commute.” How had the writers failed to acknowledge this important piece of data?

“Ah, racism: once you pull out that card, the discussion is over,” wrote Tony Keller, Toronto writer and former managing editor of Maclean’s, in response to the public outcry. Actually, no, it’s not. The only way that will end a discussion of racism is if all sides don’t continue to see a result worth striving for.

For those that subscribe to Keller’s attitude, it’s no wonder that the younger generation of students and recent graduates have gone to new alternative media and the blogoshpere to voice their distaste as to how a sensationalist piece attempted to reinforce both Asians and Caucasians stereotypes under the guise of a investigative journalistic report. The newsroom at Maclean’s should take a lesson from UBC; include some diversity in your community as a strategic means of reflecting the very audience you’re trying to appeal to. Maybe then, you will finally listen and learn.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com ... ian-too-insensitive

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-29 15:29

http://victoria.civicweb.net/Fil ... e%20of%20Motion.pdf

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-11-30 21:34

Provocative magazine article prompts race ruckus at UBC

Student demands ‘Too Asian’ apology

By Fiona Hughes, Vancouver CourierNovember 30, 2010

“Too Asian?” That provocative headline for an article in a recent issue of Maclean’s more than offended a University of B.C. history professor, who lambasted the magazine for printing it. The story focused on the high number of “Asian” students at big-name institutions such as UBC, University of Toronto and Waterloo. When I read Prof. Henry Yu’s op-ed piece in Saturday’s Vancouver Sun, I tracked down my Nov. 22 issue of Maclean’s to see what Yu was so vexed about. A comment in one of his previous op-ed pieces in the Sun annoyed me so I had to see what he was on about this time.

When I first read the headline “Too Asian?,” I reworded it to Too black? Too Jewish? and Too Christian? All of them would be “too much,” though perhaps the latter might be permissible given our society’s open acceptance of Christian bashing. Had the headline been Too Female?, I’d have shouted, “Too bad” but read on anyway. (Maclean’s has since retitled the piece “The enrolment controversy.”)

It’s unfortunate the article began with anonymous sources. Talk about a big red flag. I also wasn’t sure who the article was talking about initially—international students from Asia or every student of Asian descent?

But I question Yu’s assertion that the article was a bad idea and should never have seen the light of day. That’s downright terrifying, especially for a professor at a university where dissenting views seem to be under attack in this country. (Christie Blatchford being the latest example.) If anything, the article gave Yu the chance to air his opinion in a major daily Canadian newspaper. Nice platform if you ask me. If anything, the article was a stark reminder that Canada has a long way to go in race relations and highlighted a troubling trend in the U.S. involving race-based enrolment that I hope doesn’t happen here.

Informal segregation of ethnicities doesn’t just happen at universities. Visit the Vancouver School Board cafeteria and you’ll see groups of Asian-Canadians eating together while groups of non-Asian Canadians sit at other tables. It’s so obvious you have to wonder why. Heck, it happens at the Courier and we all like each other.

Unfortunately, the Maclean’s article had a negative tone. It read as if the high percentage of “Asians” at big-name universities is a bad thing, primarily because most “Asian” students study harder due to parental pressures and don’t party till they puke like their “white” counterparts—and never the twain shall meet. Apparently, some Canadians think they also steal precious university spots from non-Asians. This narrow-minded attitude should be known so it can be challenged.

A campus session was held last Thursday at UBC to address Maclean’s article. Yu spoke, as did city councillor and psychiatry professor Kerry Jang, journalism professor Candis Callison and two students. I wasn’t there, but linguistics major Zi-Ann Lum attended because she found the piece to be “xenophobic propaganda under the guise of investigative journalism.” She wants Maclean’s to apologize. (The magazine responded to the criticism in its latest issue, which arrived at my home yesterday, but it didn’t apologize. “We expected that it would be provocative, but we did not intend to cause offence,” the editors wrote.)

The session, she says, attracted 180 people who filled the room to capacity. Discussion centred on stereotyping in media, and the atmosphere was positive, Lum says.

“Everyone there was there with the purpose to listen and to learn why UBC students are upset and angered by Maclean’s irresponsible journalism,” Lum wrote in an email.

Isn’t then, the gathering of students and faculty to discuss such a topic a good thing to come out of the article?

As xenophobic as Lum found it, I found the article informative—if in a depressing way. I would be horrified if any Canadian university used race as a basis for admission in order to limit the number of certain ethnicities—as is apparently happening in the U.S.

Equally disheartening is the opening anecdote from the two young women, recently graduated from a prestigious private girls’ school in Toronto (Havergal College must be cringing), who didn’t want to go to U of T because it was too Asian. To hear that kind of sentiment from young residents of a large multicultural city such as Toronto is disheartening. If this is a widespread belief, it’s time schools and parents sat down and had a serious discussion with their university-bound kids. It’s also time for some kids to grow up.

fhughes@vancourier.com
© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

http://www.vancourier.com/story_print.html?id=3907400&sponsor

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-12-2 21:05

http://trentarthur.ca/index.php? ... id=16&Itemid=38

"Too asian," Maclean's? How about too racist

Written by Jonathan Alphonsus

Wednesday, 01 December 2010 11:07

Maclean's magazine recently published an article entitled "Too Asian?" by Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Köhler. The article related the apparent growing concern that universities across the country are becoming 'too Asian' in terms of their student bodies and academic approaches.

The problem, according to the authors, is that an influx of Chinese and, to a lesser extent, Korean, Hong Kong and Vietnamese students, is causing academic standards to rise and university culture to change at schools with a high proportion of students from these backgrounds. They claim that Asian students, both local and foreign, concentrate feverishly on their studies and neglect the party culture so beloved at universities across North America.

The article also goes on to describe how the overachievement of Asian students has caused some universities in the United States to raise entrance standards for students of Asian descent. At some schools, a student of Asian descent needs to have an SAT score 140 points higher than a student of another ethnicity. Because a disproportionate number of Asian students have a co-curricular background in music, many schools purposely limit the points awarded on an entrance application to Asian students who play an instrument at an advanced level.

Several students interviewed in the article also say that the ethnic makeup of the student body was a factor in their selection of universities to attend. University of Toronto, University of British Columbia and University of Waterloo were rated as "too Asian." One unamed white student was quoted as saying "All the white kids go to Queen's, Western and McGill. The only girls at my school who went to U of T were Asian."

Reaction to the article, unsurprisingly, has been overwhelmingly negative. The Chinese Canadian National Council immediately slammed the writers for perpetrating an "Us vs Them" mentality. The Filipino Canadian Youth Alliance released a statement saying, "The articles are not only examples of irresponsible and bad journalism, but they also represent propaganda that perpetuates racism, irrational anxiety and fear." A Facebook group called "Too Asian?" Talk Back has garnered almost 650 members, many of them condemning Maclean's and the authors of the article.

In a phone interview with Arthur, Trent University President Dr. Stephen Franklin stated that "increasing diversity is very healthy, and diversity makes an essential contribution to our learning environment. The increase in enrolment over the last few years (of students from diverse backgrounds) demonstrates our success in the diversification of the student body."

When asked about ethnic silos on campus, where students only socialize with students of similar ethnic makeup as themselves, he said, "We are encouraging student associations to reach out more and we are supporting them adequately." As well, he addressed the issue of racial profiling on university admission forms in some American schools. "Ethnicity has never been a factor in our admissions process, and if it ever became a factor then I would be extremely worried."

Dr. Micheal Allcott, the director of the Trent International Program, said that the framing of the term 'Asian' is racist in itself. "I would question what 'Asian' actually means. In the racist context [in which] this term is used, people are looking for a Chinese face, without questioning the diversity of China, and the diversity of Asia." Dr. Allcott did acknowledge that students of Asian descent, and Chinese descent in particular, have not been made as visible as they should be. "We have about 150 students from China, and they are a core part of our community. Yet look at our marketing material, look at what is published in the Arthur, do we ever see these faces? Why do we 'invisibilize' these students?"

"Every student at Trent, Canadian or international, faces the challenge of fitting in, and belonging. Sometimes at Trent we make the mistake of putting this burden on the 'minority' student," Dr. Allcott continued."But the burden doesn't belong on the person of the 'minority'. It belongs on the shoulders of everyone."

The Trent Central Student Association, in a media statement prepared by Nejat Abdella, International Student Commissioner and Saman Jamil, Anti-racism Commissioner said that "Increasing the number of students from diverse backgrounds not only enriches the educational experience that Trent provides but also adds value to our community. They deepen the culture, provide interesting perspectives about global realities and prompt the need to correct historical injustices and construct a respectful non condescending student body." Their statement went on to say that "Trent is endowed with a diverse international population. It provides resources and services that many universities in Ontario lack. However there seems to be an evident double standard. Trent does pursue and actively recruit a diverse set of students but the pool of diversity is eschewed because there is no system put in place to accept students who do not fit into the mainstream Canadian education system. This limits many students who possess the capability but lack the resources and educational background from taking advantage of and becoming a part of the university."

Co-Chair of the Trent South East Asian Students Organization Christine Liew also addressed the issue from the students' perspectives. "At Trent and probably at every other institution, it isn't that hard to spot a group of Asian students here and there, comfortably chatting away in their own language." However, she did make a distinction between local and international students, "Asian-Canadians are more likely to be hanging out with people from the larger Trent community, that is, they appear to feel more at ease to mix around with other Canadians." She suggested that the biggest obstacle faced by students of a visible minority is the language barrier. "For example, I know a handful of students whose English speaking proficiency isn't enough to have a decent conversation with other students who speak English fluently. This causes them to shy away sometimes."

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-12-2 21:09

http://www.facebook.com/oliviachowNDP

Olivia Chow I am submitting this motion to the House of Commons: That this government call on Maclean’s to issue a comprehensive and unqualified public apology to Asian Canadians regarding its November 2010 offensive and divisive “Too Asian?” article, as it racially profiles and stereotypes Asian Canadians as perpetual foreigners ...in Canada and suggests Canadian students of Asian heritage maybe limiting opportunities for non-Asians at certain Canadian universities.

sweetspot · 发表于 2010-12-2 21:14

13# sweetspot
Prof. Tony Chan tells Maclean's to "man up!"

Man up! Maclean's

by Tony Chan

Tony Chan is a professor in the communications program at University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, Ontario. Chan, a.k.a. "Chanimal", has also taught Asian American studies in the United States. He is the author of several books, including Gold Mountain: The Chinese in the New World (1983).

Hey Maclean's,

"Feeling the Heat" should have been the change of title to your racist article entitled "Too Asian?"

Your new, lame title, "The Enrolment Controversy" won't make the ANGER in the Asian Canadian communities go away.

MAN UP Maclean's!

Admit you screwed up!

The damage is done and right minded Canadians who saw the racism that your reporters generated will remember forever. We continue to remember the W5 racism that CTV generated back in 1979. The similarities are so evident. How do I know? I was the Halifax delegate to the founding of the CCNC [Chinese Canadian National Council] in 1980.

But if you, Maclean's, are trying to head off the damage done to your reputation and credibility in the "visible minority" communities by making a deal with the CCNC, think again! The racist attitude that your reporters and editors fostered was to ALL ASIANS.

Get it? ALL ASIANS!

Remember your title, "Too Asians?" It wasn't "Too Chinese?"

Get a grip Maclean's.

What your editorial board and ALL your reporters need is some real down-to-earth soul searching on what it means to be a "Canadian".

When your article implies that my Chinese ancestral family, which has been here since 1882 is not Canadian enough, your editorial board and ALL your reporters need to take some intense workshops and learn about how much Asian Canadians have contributed and still contribute to Canadian civilization.

That's why Canadian universities need to set up Asian Canadian Studies programs to educate all Canadians, especially journalists.

And as a journalism and film production professor at the University of Washington (17 years) and now at the University of Ontario Instititue of Technology, it's pretty obvious that your editors and two reporters also need some remedial education in what constitute "balanced" reporting.

MAN UP Maclean's!

It's about time.

账号		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册