https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/07/07/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-3/ 贴个原话。我觉得twitter说的是对的，问话的人exactly是在问upcoming October的 Harvard和UNC的案子，那么她的回答就应该是针对这两个案子的。当然你可以说这个发言人答非所问；either way，she is stupid. Q And two other questions on two other subjects really fast. As you talked about and as we’re still reeling and trying to figure out still what happens after Roe v. Wade in the states, et cetera — after the overturn of Roe v. Wade: In October, a case is supposed to be before the Supreme Court on affirmative action when it comes to education admittance — admittance on race. And there is a thought that it could be overturned with the way this Court has been overturning longstanding action cases. What is the White House’s thought on this? And is there a plan? Are you preparing for this, as many law organizations are preparing amicus briefs, friend of court briefs in favor of keeping these admittance — racial admittance procedures? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, April, the President has been very clear about these extreme decisions that the Supreme Court has been making — not just on Roe, but EPA and other decisions that have come down most recently. This is another one that you’re talking about, in October. Look, the President has been also clear — is that we have to take action. We — that, you know, Americans have to make sure that they take their voices to the ballot box. That is the way that we are going to be able to — to fight back in a way that’s effective, in a way that’s going to make a difference. We have Republicans who are doing extremes. The President calls them “Ultra-MAGA.” They are a part of the Ultra-MAGA wing who are trying to take away the rights of the American people. That’s what they’re trying to do. And so, we have to do everything that we can. American public has to do everything that they can to make sure that their voices are heard at the ballot box. And that’s what the President is going to continue to speak to, and that’s what the President is asking for people to do. fenghuaren 发表于 2022-07-10 11:23
Thank you for sharing. 发言人的态度很清楚就是：如果十月份按种族录取的案子被推翻了，这将是高法extreme和ultra-MAGA们干的另一件坏事
我同意她说的：American should take their voices to the ballot box. 所以 Asian American should take their voices to the ballot box! 没有一个政党能够完全代表我们的利益，我们必须在我们所关心的 issue 中，挑出最重要的，看那个政党能够支持我们的观点。这个 issue 是关系到我们下一代的利益，也和我们的价值观紧紧相连。如果你认为这是你关心的最重要的问题，那就投票！
单纯的就事论事，去听一下发言本身把，里面根本没有说“asian american”，说的是republican，而且泛泛地把roe，epa这些最近的案子都包括进去了，说这些是exteme。光这个事件本身，明明是这个RNCResearch在标题党。民主党再怎么也不会明着把asian american parents挑出来说事吧。
没有要向谁投降啊，你人数差太远了，两边都是把你当砧板上的肉来切，一个抢你资源，一个歧视你，让你take the shit back to China。我前面的三点，其实就等于 1）增强自己的实力，把主动权抓在自己手里 2）接受现实，听天由命 3）跑 也只能这三点了，其他都不具有现实意义 头文字D 发表于 2022-07-10 19:41
多数美国人根本不支持 AA Pew poll of American adults finds 74 percent think race and ethnicity should not be considered in admissions decisions. For gender, 82 percent think it shouldn’t be considered. 反向歧视最后会反噬的。现在是全球竞争的时代，别的国家都在抢人材，美国还在通过肤色限制人材，同时又要和中国打科技战，维持老大的地位，会自食其果的。
The Duke study showed large racial preferences in admission causes a lot of problems. One of the most serious of these is “academic mismatch,” which occurs when a student finds herself at a university where most of the other students have substantially higher qualifications. A mismatched student who is interested in a science or technical (“STEM”) field has a dramatically lower chance of graduating with a STEM degree than she would experience at a less-elite university. A mismatched law student is more than twice as likely to fail the bar exam as the same student would be at a less elite law school. Other examples abound, and have been documented in more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies. The “mismatch effect,” contrary to some claims, is definitely not a consequence of a student’s race. Highly qualified Black students admitted without preferences (or with only a small preference) do fine, and white students admitted with a large preference (for example, some athletes or legacy preference beneficiaries) run into the same academic problems as students admitted with a large affirmative action preference. Large racial preferences also cause a serious “social mismatch” problem. A careful 2013 study at Duke University, which uses large racial preferences similar to those at Harvard and UNC, found that entering freshmen initially formed friendships that reflected the diversity of the freshman class, but that friendships became more stratified over time along lines of academic performance. The “A” students tend to hang out with other “A” students, the “B” students with other “B” students, and so on. Since large racial preferences create large racial differences in college performance, the high-performing students tend to be predominantly white and Asian-American; the low-performing students tend to be Black or, to a lesser degree, Hispanic. This academic stratification by race thus precipitates a social stratification. The Duke study showed that these social effects are driven by student performance, not by race: High-performing Black students continued to have very racially diverse friendship networks, but struggling Black students were increasingly segregated in predominantly minority networks. Other national data, and a controlled experiment at the Air Force Academy in Colorado produced similar results. Large preferences produce counterproductive social effects. From this perspective, the demands of many Black students at elite college campuses to have segregated dormitories, separate graduations, “safe” spaces on campus, and ethnically focused majors are less puzzling. College administrators don’t tell students that they are using large racial preferences, but Black students will notice, as soon as grades come out during freshman year, that a disproportionate number of their Black friends are in academic difficulty. In the absence of any other information, it is not surprising that they conclude that the campus is “hostile” to Black success and is putting them in harm’s way. In a sense, that is exactly what college administrators are doing. Both socially and academically, then, racial preferences in admissions tend to do the opposite of what their proponents claim: They reduce the diversity of college interactions, and they make it more difficult for minorities to be academically successful.
多数美国人根本不支持 AA Pew poll of American adults finds 74 percent think race and ethnicity should not be considered in admissions decisions. For gender, 82 percent think it shouldn’t be considered. 反向歧视最后会反噬的。现在是全球竞争的时代，别的国家都在抢人材，美国还在通过肤色限制人材，同时又要和中国打科技战，维持老大的地位，会自食其果的。 xiaohaot 发表于 2022-07-10 20:39
你们看了源视频没有啊？很气愤啊，她最后竟然说they are taking away the rights of American people...还有之前说要WE need to fight back. 她这是毫不掩饰的把亚裔排除在外 大家一起take action 这太令人震惊了吧 rose9999 发表于 2022-07-10 22:02
你觉得她怎么说的不重要，就不要和别人争她说了啥。别人指出楼主标题党，歪曲事实的时候，你也别争，因为不重要。
反正拜登上台就把司法部起诉哈弗的案子停了，整个民主党就是一个态度，支持AA， 打着Diversity的旗号，压制亚裔，而且已经开始扩大到求职找工作了
不是，多数人会用，有人可以有别的选择比如许多雇主会允许退休人员继续跟着买保险但premium要高许多，federal employees退休后也可以买原来的，如果服务年数够了按在职人员的rate买。
2016 大选前后，版上全是川粉，还拉飞机横幅助选呢。那会儿谁要说句Hillary Clinton 或者民主党好话，直接就是圣母婊了。
不是6 weeks吗？怎么又多了一个月？
华裔自己不争气。之前那么多上藤校的， 1.政治上爬上去了吗？ 2.爬上去后给自己race争取利益了吗？ 3.各行各业有把持资源的华人大牛/团体吗？尤其是影响力大的行业（文化/体育/娱乐）
有点气候的也就是大厂码农一个方向。这方向不需要上藤校。不砍华人名额砍谁的？跟别的race比，华人已经够富裕够educated了。
有时候在想 美国现在如此多的政治正确口号 和中国当年的文革有什么本质的区别。 也许这是当权阶层最好的控制人的手段。而且在任何时间 任何国家 都会屡试不爽。
是的。我听了好几遍，根本没有针对asian parents。这个共和党推文很无耻的移花接木，就是要挑起asian community对dem的愤怒。
哈哈哈 吃救济真是可以好好测试一下这个系统
这有什么奇怪的吗？ Many asian parents 反对大学招生种族配额啊, 可是这些人并不是extreme 啊，只不过想给自己的孩子争取平等的权益，这有什么错吗？凭啥要给这种人扣上extreme 和MEGA 的帽子？
~~~每次如此也是够了。
Thank you for sharing. 发言人的态度很清楚就是：如果十月份按种族录取的案子被推翻了，这将是高法extreme和ultra-MAGA们干的另一件坏事
不明白为什么不让引用这一层。藤校毕业的亚裔，反思一下有多少成为了亚裔的领袖，为亚裔谋利益，有多少throw us under the bus，给别人当喉舌割亚裔的韭菜。比如各大媒体的亚裔写手们，有在主流媒体上提升亚裔形象吗？我读过的恶心亚裔的文章，好多还都是这些人写的呢。
给亚裔quota的事情就别想了，不限制亚裔quota就是拍案惊奇了，参考NYT那篇说亚裔在skating项目里 over-represented的评论。
那篇文章是亚裔自我抹黑的典范。我当时骂的时候，这版上还有一堆人出来给辩护呢。
脑补能力牛！
确实，完全没搞明白那些人的逻辑
1）还是没想通AA哪怕在职场上对亚裔有啥好处 亚裔只占全美人口5%，按照种族分配，对亚裔在职场上没有半点好处
2）减少亚裔在顶尖大学里的比例，自然也会影响亚裔的职场竞争力
支持职场AA，但请从NBA做起
你这是啥理解能力？重看十遍，看看明白了没有。
纽约重点高中的事就是把Asian挑出来说了。当然很多人会装作没听见。
抢名额的很多是一些家里有背景包装出来的"特长"生，这种我在学校见到挺多的。比如之前在Stanford遇到过一个GPA非常高的本科"学霸“（印二代），一起做research发现能力为零，需要手把手教，一行一行的code带着写，完全没有自主能动性，估计以前是家长请过大量tutoring包装出来的。
亚裔作为少数族类，有色人种，有一些政治问题要想长选一些。 我觉得高院根本就不care亚裔是不是能上哈福，所以法案推翻了，也未必会把这些名额给亚裔。
没听出白宫发言人有针对亚裔的意思，更多的是给共和党扣个帽子来敷衍回答记者提问。这个推玩标题党，不过现任白宫发言人水平比上一个更差了，哎。
首先，我喊两句口号，大家看看听完有什么感觉？ 第一句口号，我们的福利太好了，我们要把我们的福利让给其他种族的人群！ 另外一句口号，我们在美国的中国人要互相团结，争取自己的福利！ 你同意哪一句？绝大多数人都是同意第二句，对不对？ 那请问，我们要团结争取自己的福利，其他种族的人为什么不团结争取他们的福利呢？
其次，基于上一段的结论，本楼讨论的问题，根本无解，前途对于美华来说，是灰暗的 在民主社会，谁的选票多，谁就能制定更有利于自己的政策 你让黑人，西班牙裔人的人选票多，但却制定有利于亚裔的政策，这是做梦！ 你或许会说，按成绩，按能力，就是最公平的政策 但可惜，人家已经非常清楚地告诉你们了，他们不这么认为，你说100次也没用 人家就是要用政策去弥补他们成绩上的不足，这已经是阳谋，不是阴谋
所以，对于我们中国人来说，这个问题只有三种结局 1）积极生育，增加人口，达到第二大种族或第三大种族的地位，在投票权上占据有利地位 2）接受现实，希望美国继续繁荣昌盛，社会稳定，就算吃人家吃剩的，也能过上算不错的日子 3）让孩子先学好中文，希望中国能够繁荣，富裕，稳定，以后彻底回归华人社会，不再在美国受这种种族地位不平等的鸟气
林书豪不就是个好例子？靠着亚裔的身份才被勇士签下，开始ＮＢＡ生涯。
实际上ＮＢＡ在平权方面是美国各大职业联赛中做的最好的， 有好多的女性高管，少数族裔高管， 老板里面有蔡，还有印度老板巴基斯坦老板， 对比一下那些old money的MLB和NFL，那才是老白男的世界呢。
个例有用吗，按照高校的aa ,nba得给亚裔分配固定名额吧，即使打球不如黑人也得让一部分黑人让路（搞结果公平而不是机会公平就是刷流氓）
这话非常有理！左右都要防，没有一个对亚裔是白莲花的，都是明里暗里搞亚裔的！
跟其他少数族裔抢本来就很可怜的那点资源？ 还是跟其他少数族裔一起，去老白男那边割更多资源大家分？
换个马甲也没用 人身攻击更没用
这三个都是下策。美华要学习犹太人。犹太人都已经示范过了。不知道为什么还有reinvent the wheel.
这就太想当然了。入学这个问题如果放倒ballot box上，亚裔基本没有话语权。走court 都比你走选票靠谱
其实AA没问题，但首先不能是quota，不能所有的蛋糕都靠种族分。只能是额外给少数族裔优惠。也就是说，比如，大部分的位置自由竞争，剩下小部分（比如10%）的位子，分给少数族裔中的优秀者。
其次“少数族裔”必须是人口中的少数，不能是该行业/学校中的少数。
反对民主党的一些NC政策，和支持川普完全是两个话题。。
只有二极管思维的人，才会因为前者而直接变为后者。。
心系美国就高人一等？那要是心系世界，是不是全世界人就要尊重之？要是心系宇宙呢？
川总好不好可以说，但有事说事，这种口号性的，去琢磨人家心里想啥的东西，就没多大意义了。。。
你搞清楚点好不好，我们中国人今天在美国硕果仅存的一点财富和教育，都是靠自己努力获得的，不是靠抢的。
看川粉说老川心系美国，我总有红卫兵歌颂舵手的即视感。
大衣姐为什么不读清华？是因为不喜欢吗？
所以呢？你不想自己的子孙后代可以在一个更加公平平等的社会环境里生活？ 要他们像前辈一样，只能在老白男制定的框架里付出更多的努力？
和其他少数族裔合作不是问题，但问题是，其他少数族裔柿子捏软的吃，第一个抢的就是我们华人的，那怎么破？
那也不是就该直接投降皇军啊～～
为啥你认为黑人的照顾名额是华裔的？
没有要向谁投降啊，你人数差太远了，两边都是把你当砧板上的肉来切，一个抢你资源，一个歧视你，让你take the shit back to China。我前面的三点，其实就等于
1）增强自己的实力，把主动权抓在自己手里 2）接受现实，听天由命 3）跑
也只能这三点了，其他都不具有现实意义
你不能只看一个林书豪的例子。我反对以人口比例来决定工作比例或就学比例。一切都应该是merit based。我不在乎NBA球员大多数都是非裔，这是自然选择的结果。但在这个没有改变之前，拒绝接受任何职场AA。
现行AA的结果就是从亚裔这分蛋糕给老黑劳模 而根本不是所谓的靠AA从白人这里挖利益
后者纯粹是自我洗脑的说法
数据支持，华裔多少比例，上好大学，去好公司的多少比例，一目了然。当然，这都是华裔自己努力争取来的，并没有靠歪门邪道。教育上AA，职场上AA就是零和政策，因为教育名额，职场名额都是固定的，实质上就是用quota来稀释你努力的结果。
因为AA下，亚裔入学名额被人为压制了，而老黑劳模被提升
我们要的就是一个公平平等啊。不把肤色race作为工作就学的consideration, 就是我们要的公平啊。
选票说了算，法律说了算。
我真的是不喜欢。我不喜欢在中国读本科。我连高中都不想在中国读。 当然啦，你黄冈题库不做一定要自己出题自己做，你就自己做吧。你自己出题还有给同学做。谁做谁知道啦。
美国白人保守派反对AA这是在根本利益上与亚裔结盟。 这个时候不争取，那就彻底被抛弃了，搞不懂这些左左们骂右翼华人骂得这么凶，川普一句Chinese virus没完没了有意思么？民主党这么体谅华人么，入学工作上打击亚裔，只会说漂亮话而已，民主党上台后黑人针对亚裔暴力只多不少。 靠生育，靠回中国这些都是痴人说梦，大多数华裔后代有什么动力去中国做个普通人，承受那种压力。
左左真是搞笑，一边要平等，一边又自己歧视。。。真是虚伪至极
AA是reverse discrimination，通过矫枉过正来达到平等的最终目的。 从６０年代开始，亚裔一开始就是受益者， 然后由于自身的努力，在被扶植的少数族裔中脱颖而出，才成为所谓的model minority.
我也就是跟你，才乐意在美国社会问题方面多说几句， 即便如此也还是不想多说，写了２，３行个开头就打住了～～
你天真的以为，职场升迁都是merit based?
还是那句话，反对AA，不等于就要全面倒向并支持共和党那些同样脑残的政策
这句话正是我想说的。反对一个人，就不管另外一方的政策等whatever。而去投另外这方，被霍霍成这样真是自找。。
基本上是。如果你要说什么裙带关系什么的，无论哪里都没有绝对公平的。我只是反对用肤色Race来决定入学或入职的quota而已。我没有野心把所有职场升职的不公平全部去掉。
我们没有要歧视，我不反对在拨款，师资等方面向少数族裔倾斜，特别是向非裔倾斜，但是，在具有竞争性的选拔中，按肤色来录取，本身就是一种歧视和不公平。你要不就取消竞争性的录取，让所有人都躺平，按quota来分配，要不就在竞争中保持公平。不把评判标准公开的比赛，就是在耍流氓。
我们不支持AA，不代表就要和川粉结盟，种族歧视不是川普一个人的问题，我们没你那么天真。
wise
那你和谁结盟反AA？单打独斗？美国就这两个党，共和党貌似都被打成川党了，你准备等民主党自己反AA？
我前面说了3种可能的结局
1）壮大自己的力量 2）听天由命 3）跑
美国两党，一个歧视你，一个抢你，谁也没比另外一个好，归根到底还是人性，种族是天生且最强的粘合剂，我们美华人数太少了。不但少，还分裂，没前途。
搞清楚没多少人是川粉，只是右翼而已，华人右翼自己内部还要搞出多少帮派出来，真是搞笑，这样还想团结一致对外？白人保守派在这个问题上支持亚裔的利益，就是真正意义上的支持亚裔的种族，实用主义的人要知道利用能够帮助自己族群的势力，如果川普能做到没什么不能支持的。
Divide and concur
你让白人保守派不要让我们take the shit back to China， 我就考虑支持你的说法。 白人保守派反对外来移民，皮之不存，毛将焉附，家都没有了，还谈什么教育？
主党要你钱，和党要你滚，自己决定吧
说这种话的就是连两党的fundamentals 都没有搞清楚，人云亦云。
和党什么时候让你滚了？你把极端分子的言语当成整个和党的方针政策？我看这个AA才是整个民主党从上到下的方针政策，就算华人民主党都是衷心拥护，叫你去读community college
Pew poll of American adults finds 74 percent think race and ethnicity should not be considered in admissions decisions. For gender, 82 percent think it shouldn’t be considered.
反向歧视最后会反噬的。现在是全球竞争的时代，别的国家都在抢人材，美国还在通过肤色限制人材，同时又要和中国打科技战，维持老大的地位，会自食其果的。
这说的是两党极端派的主张。我希望两党都是温和派主事，不幸的是现实正相反，两党都是极端派日渐坐大！
One of the most serious of these is “academic mismatch,” which occurs when a student finds herself at a university where most of the other students have substantially higher qualifications. A mismatched student who is interested in a science or technical (“STEM”) field has a dramatically lower chance of graduating with a STEM degree than she would experience at a less-elite university. A mismatched law student is more than twice as likely to fail the bar exam as the same student would be at a less elite law school.
Other examples abound, and have been documented in more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies. The “mismatch effect,” contrary to some claims, is definitely not a consequence of a student’s race. Highly qualified Black students admitted without preferences (or with only a small preference) do fine, and white students admitted with a large preference (for example, some athletes or legacy preference beneficiaries) run into the same academic problems as students admitted with a large affirmative action preference.
Large racial preferences also cause a serious “social mismatch” problem. A careful 2013 study at Duke University, which uses large racial preferences similar to those at Harvard and UNC, found that entering freshmen initially formed friendships that reflected the diversity of the freshman class, but that friendships became more stratified over time along lines of academic performance.
The “A” students tend to hang out with other “A” students, the “B” students with other “B” students, and so on. Since large racial preferences create large racial differences in college performance, the high-performing students tend to be predominantly white and Asian-American; the low-performing students tend to be Black or, to a lesser degree, Hispanic.
This academic stratification by race thus precipitates a social stratification. The Duke study showed that these social effects are driven by student performance, not by race: High-performing Black students continued to have very racially diverse friendship networks, but struggling Black students were increasingly segregated in predominantly minority networks. Other national data, and a controlled experiment at the Air Force Academy in Colorado produced similar results. Large preferences produce counterproductive social effects.
From this perspective, the demands of many Black students at elite college campuses to have segregated dormitories, separate graduations, “safe” spaces on campus, and ethnically focused majors are less puzzling.
College administrators don’t tell students that they are using large racial preferences, but Black students will notice, as soon as grades come out during freshman year, that a disproportionate number of their Black friends are in academic difficulty. In the absence of any other information, it is not surprising that they conclude that the campus is “hostile” to Black success and is putting them in harm’s way. In a sense, that is exactly what college administrators are doing.
Both socially and academically, then, racial preferences in admissions tend to do the opposite of what their proponents claim: They reduce the diversity of college interactions, and they make it more difficult for minorities to be academically successful.
主党票仓大都是只看眼前的人群。
那你是既得利益者，你的话没有参考价值了
白人保守派，黑人，Latino的loser都可能跟你说这句话，而反对AA支持亚裔入学职场利益的只有白人保守派而已，白人主要反对的是拉美非法移民，以中国现在老龄化和对抗西方的程度，支持移民也没有用，不会有太多的稳定输入的中国移民了，你支持移民来的也都是印度人。
本版大妈恨不得举报那些来美国生娃的，和在这吃福利的。自己又不愿意多生。所以壮大华人族群无解。自己人上了车恨不得赶紧关门。
极左极右都是祸
在她眼里，只有黑人才算American people, 其他都不是Americans, 或者不算人
我承认各个种族的人都有可能有歧视的人存在，但是，我们又不是瞎的，在种族歧视这方面，哪个政党更不可信，我们心里有数。这就好比，大家都说中国人勤劳，你说中国人也有不勤劳的，这种说法只不过是打模糊仗而已。川普三番四次说Chinese Virus, 共和党全党上下有人站出来反对吗？至少民主党没有领导阶层敢说这种话，就算有，很快也会被其他人纠正。
你说白人主要反对的是拉美移民，这是因为他们受到了选票的威胁，哪一天美华力量大了，他们反对的就是你。另外，白人保守派不但有种族歧视的问题，还有白人至上主义的问题。他们认为白人天生就比较高级，对不起，你接受得了，我接受不了。
最后，纠正你一个错误，不是只有白人保守派反对AA。刚刚已经有人贴过数据了，全美国超过7成的人，都反对在入学上AA。