Thursday, February 13, 2014

Dongguan Hold On

Dongguan is a prefecture-level city in Guangdong Province with a population of 8 million. The city situates itself between Guangzhou and Shenzhen. For decades, it had been known as the 'manufacturing capital' of the world. Recently, it is also dabbed as the 'sex capital' of China.

For whatever reason, the CCTV under the Central Propaganda Ministry named Dongguan in it's national news broadcasting, accusing it of harboring prostitution activities, a criminal offense in China. It came as a sudden earthquake. Over six thousands police combed the city, and 67 prostitutes and their clients were arrested in one night. It's an inconvenience and understandably disappointing for those who rely on the service. But the reaction from the public was interesting, to say the least. According to online data research, more than 80% of online comments support the illegal business. Shy of mentioned the word prostitution per se, online media and even some publication use banners with bold fonts to show support 'Dongguan Hold On', 'Dongguan Be Strong'. Data analytics studies suggested that the great majority of males posters mocked and taunted the CCTV and the police, while women who as a whole did not approve prostitution activities kept silence.

An off duty police officer was seen holding a sign on the street in Hong Kong to protest for a colleague who was arrested on a sex trip in Dongguan. Local residents also displayed banners with the phrase, 'our soul is not for sale', with an undertone of mocking the reporters of CCTV.

What made Chinese, known for being introverted otherwise, to publicly spoke up for such an embarrassing act?

In an unrelated incident hundreds miles away in Guan'an, Sichuan Province on the same day, a police officer confiscated a scale from a peddler who was selling vegetables without a permit. The officer then threw the scale down a ditch. It appears the peddler was not beaten or mistreated. Still passerby were engaged, and soon a brawl was ensued. Thousands of people who had no ties to the peddler surrounded the police force, and demanded an apology.

It's no secret that any public defiant to the communists party rule will predictably gain a standing ovation from the audiences, anytime, any where. In many cases, it doesn't matter which side was at fault. Bashing the government has been a fashion for intellectuals and often a marketing technique for businessmen.

Since assuming the power in 2012, the Xi/Li administration has arrested and jailed more dissidents than twelve years of Hu/Wen administration combined. But obviously, people did not blink.

Shouldn't 'they' be scared?

Sunday, February 09, 2014

Building Up An Espionage Case

It took over two years of police work to build up an espionage charge against six individuals who alleged stole agricultural secrets for a Chinese Conglomerate DBN.

Hailong Robert Mo was found kneeing in an unmarked corn field near Tama, Iowa digging freshly planted seeds, with a getaway car waiting, on May 3, 2011. A field manager of DuPont Pioneer questioned Mo, but he was able to get away fast. The car's license plate was traced back to Mo. Monsanto also reported suspicious activity. FBI agents were alerted during a routine site visit on June 30, 2011. An investigation was initiated in September 2011.

It turned out a team of 'Asian males' had been travelling extensively through Midwestern farm belt states, visiting farmers who had been contracted with seeds companies DuPont, Monsanto and LG to plant bio-engineered corns. Mo would be stopped again four months later checking out an unmarked Monsanto test field by Polk County (Iowa) Sheriff's Deputy.

In February 2012, FBI was expecting Mo to accompany visiting Chinese leader Xi Jinping on an agricultural tour but could not locate Mo by surveillance they set up at the Des Moines airport. Later, FBI was notified by Pioneer security team that Mo was found at their headquarters with the tour, using an assumed name of Wu Hougang, Chairman of Dalian Zhangzidao Fishery Group. FBI was able to locate Mo several hours later in a tour of a Monsanto facility in Ankeny, Iowa. Later that evening, Mo attended the state dinner hosted by the Iowa Governor for Xi. The next day, Mo would attend an agriculture conference with the same assumed name Wu. Mo was seen meeting with former Pioneer employee whose wife was an active Pioneer corn geneticist researcher.

FBI recorded a revealing conversation between two DBN employees Ye Jian and Lin Young, when they were traveling in a rental car in the US.
Ye: You can forget about ever coming to the US again... Isn't that ruining an individual's future?
Lin: I don't think it's that simple. I actually studied the law.
Ye: They could treat us as spies.
Lin: Trespassing, theft/larceny, IP. All criminal offences... not just blocking us from visiting.
Lin: Dr. Li actually knows clearly, he knows. When the seed operation was launched, he was in charge of the legal side.
Lin: My family just has no clue what I am doing here. My oldman asked me what you guys are doing staying in the US for so long? What can I say? Can't say anything.
Lin: I don't really want to come to the US anyway.
Ye: So [sigh]. The company can't afford the legal cost.
Lin: Taking things from the property is theft... Nowadays the US is very hostile to China on this matter. If this time they opt to -
Ye: [Deep sigh]
Lin: I mentioned it to Dr. Li that I don't agree on running this project for such a long time.
Ye: The longer the time is, the more likely we get in trouble.
Lin: My point is that the outcome doesn't justify the effort we put in. We take such a huge risk, for such a long time, just to get some duplicates. From decision-making standpoint, I think it's not. Dr. Li's personality tends to go extreme.

FBI observed a meeting of Mo, Ye, Li and 'Hongwei Wang' September 2012. US Border Patrol found in checked bags of luggage of Ye and Li to China what appears to be factory-sealed microwave popcorn boxes. Upon opening the boxes, on top were popcorn package, but inside each box were approximately 100 small manila envelops with corn seeds. USCBP found additional napkins with corn seeds in Ye's pockets when Ye was awaiting for his flight. Approximately the same time, Boarder Patrol at a Canadian border found 44 bags of corn seeds in Hongwei's car hidden under his seat and in his luggage. Hundreds of pictures of corn fields and Monsanto and Pioneer tours were found in Hongwei's digital camera.

The criminal complaint was violation of 1832 (theft of intellectual property). The case was US v. Mo on trial in the Southern District of Iowa 4:2013-cr-00147-RP-CFB-002. Mo pleaded not guilty.

DBN is a publicaly traded company at Shenzhen Exchange with a market value of 25.66 billion RMB ($4 billion). The Chairperson of DBN is Mr. Shao Genhuo, a self-made billionaire with a net worth of $1.45 billion (#90 China Rich List).

Friday, February 07, 2014

What Espenshade/Radford/Nieli Did not Say

Being a Jew himself probably offered Russell Nieli the courage to speak out on the systematic discrimination against kids of Asian heritage. However, anyone who had watched the Japanese movie Rashomon knew, the real truth was left out for an unspecific reason which is often darker than one would dare to face.

The prevailing racially motivated discrimination in education opportunities are in fact crafted by the elite white people to preserve an otherwise unjustified self-interests, as Espenshade, Radford and Nieli pointed out. But that was not new information.

Racial discrimination against Asian kids in the education system in the US is a well accepted common sense that does not need any number to prove. What could be a better topic is 'why' do they do that? Why did the elite what intentionally hurt the most hard working and high productive class in the US, especially at a time when advent of information technology has made the world flat thus the US is facing mounting competition from outside.

The words that nobody is mentioning is 'affirmative action', the most corrupt power-sharing framework designed by the elite to serve themselves at the cost of everyone else, including the African Americans. By bribing the African Americans (and late comers such as the Latinos), the elite class in exchange is allowed to use holistic standard in the admission process to get their own kids into places they would not be able to reach.

It is equally important to point out that although the victims are Asian kids, but those who benefited are the 'elite' class rather than a specific ethic group. Justice Sotomayor, a lucky AA product, impromptu defended the legacy preferences in an exchange with lawyers on the Michigan case because she too wanted to guaranteed seats for her own children, even though lawyers argued that it was obvious beneficial for increasing minority admission to see the Legacy Preference gone.

For low information followers, the message that the elite what to get out is that they are being saved by the elite from harms of competition from Asian kids who work unnecessarily too hard. The elite portrait themvselves as the saviors and guardians for the Blacks and Latinos. They plays the tricks of fears to cohort Blacks and Latinos into their political allies. As a result they got to keep the preferences admission.

Nieli correctly pointed out that by means of preferences admission, the elite not only blocked hard working Asian kids education opportunity only because of their skin color, but also sent unqualified offspring of their own to top schools. As a byproduct, it effectively killed self-esteem of Blacks, Latinos and Indians. All in all, the elite successfully secure the most favorable scheme for their own prosperity.

What the elite fail to learn from history lessons are: 1) once people realized what they have done, they would be recognized as thugs and treated as such; 2) after they had brought the entire country down, there would be little room for their own kids to enjoy.

How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others
By Russell K. Nieli
July 12, 2010

When college presidents and academic administrators pay their usual obeisance to "diversity" you know they are talking first and foremost about race. More specifically, they are talking about blacks. A diverse college campus is understood as one that has a student body that--at a minimum--is 5 to 7 percent black (i.e., equivalent to roughly half the proportion of blacks in the general population). A college or university that is only one, two, or three percent black would not be considered "diverse" by college administrators regardless of how demographically diverse its student body might be in other ways. The blacks in question need not be African Americans--indeed at many of the most competitive colleges today, including many Ivy League schools, an estimated 40-50 percent of those categorized as black are Afro-Caribbean or African immigrants, or the children of such immigrants.

As a secondary meaning "diversity" can also encompass Hispanics, who together with blacks are often subsumed by college administrators and admissions officers under the single race category "underrepresented minorities." Most colleges and universities seeking "diversity" seek a similar proportion of Hispanics in their student body as blacks (since blacks and Hispanics are about equal in number in the general population), though meeting the black diversity goal usually has a much higher priority than meeting the Hispanic one.

Asians, unlike blacks and Hispanics, receive no boost in admissions. Indeed, the opposite is often the case, as the quota-like mentality that leads college administrators to conclude they may have "too many" Asians. Despite the much lower number of Asians in the general high-school population, high-achieving Asian students--those, for instance, with SAT scores in the high 700s--are much more numerous than comparably high-achieving blacks and Hispanics, often by a factor of ten or more. Thinking as they do in racial balancing and racial quota terms, college admissions officers at the most competitive institutions almost always set the bar for admitting Asians far above that for Hispanics and even farther above that for admitting blacks.

"Diversity" came to be so closely associated with race in the wake of the Supreme Court's Bakke decision in 1978. In his decisive opinion, Justice Lewis Powell rejected arguments for racial preferences based on generalized "societal discrimination," social justice, or the contemporary needs of American society as insufficiently weighty to overrule the color-blind imperative of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. That imperative, however, could be overruled, Powell said, by a university's legitimate concern for the educational benefits of a demographically diverse student body.

Virtually all competitive colleges after Bakke continued with their racial preference policies ("affirmative action"), though after Powell's decision they had to cloak their true meaning and purpose behind a misleading or dishonest rhetoric of "diversity." Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a critic of racial preferences, accurately explains the situation: "The raison d'etre for race-specific affirmative action programs," Dershowitz writes, "has simply never been diversity for the sake of education. The checkered history of 'diversity' demonstrates that it was designed largely as a cover to achieve other legally, morally, and politically controversial goals. In recent years, it has been invoked--especially in the professional schools--as a clever post facto justification for increasing the number of minority group students in the student body."

While almost all college administrators and college admissions officers at the most elite institutions think in racial balancing and racial quota-like terms when they assemble their student body, they almost always deny this publicly in a blizzard of rhetoric about a more far-flung "diversity." Indeed, there is probably no other area where college administrators are more likely to lie or conceal the truth of what they are doing than in the area of admissions and race.

Most elite universities seem to have little interest in diversifying their student bodies when it comes to the numbers of born-again Christians from the Bible belt, students from Appalachia and other rural and small-town areas, people who have served in the U.S. military, those who have grown up on farms or ranches, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, lower-middle-class Catholics, working class "white ethnics," social and political conservatives, wheelchair users, married students, married students with children, or older students first starting out in college after raising children or spending several years in the workforce. Students in these categories are often very rare at the more competitive colleges, especially the Ivy League. While these kinds of people would surely add to the diverse viewpoints and life-experiences represented on college campuses, in practice "diversity" on campus is largely a code word for the presence of a substantial proportion of those in the "underrepresented" racial minority groups.

The Diversity Colleges Want

A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want--or don't want--on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of "diversity" they seek. The Espenshade/Radford study draws from a new data set, the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), which was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities (entering freshmen SAT scores: 1360). Data was collected on over 245,000 applicants from three separate application years, and over 9,000 enrolled students filled out extensive questionnaires. Because of confidentiality agreements Espenshade and Radford could not name the institutions but they assure us that their statistical profile shows they fit nicely within the top 50 colleges and universities listed in the U.S. News & World Report ratings.

Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an "other things equal basis," where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points.

The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student's chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550. Here the Espenshade/Radford results are consistent with other studies, including those of William Bowen and Derek Bok in their book The Shape of the River, though they go beyond this influential study in showing both the substantial Hispanic admissions advantage and the huge admissions penalty suffered by Asian applicants. Although all highly competitive colleges and universities will deny that they have racial quotas--either minimum quotas or ceiling quotas--the huge boosts they give to the lower-achieving black and Hispanic applicants, and the admissions penalties they extract from their higher-achieving Asian applicants, clearly suggest otherwise.

Espenshade and Radford also take up very thoroughly the question of "class based preferences" and what they find clearly shows a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites. Other studies, including a 2005 analysis of nineteen highly selective public and private universities by William Bowen, Martin Kurzweil, and Eugene Tobin, in their 2003 book, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, found very little if any advantage in the admissions process accorded to whites from economically or educationally disadvantaged families compared to whites from wealthier or better educated homes. Espenshade and Radford cite this study and summarize it as follows: "These researchers find that, for non-minority [i.e., white] applicants with the same SAT scores, there is no perceptible difference in admission chances between applicants from families in the bottom income quartile, applicants who would be the first in their families to attend college, and all other (non-minority) applicants from families at higher levels of socioeconomic status. When controls are added for other student and institutional characteristics, these authors find that "on an other-things-equal basis, [white] applicants from low-SES backgrounds, whether defined by family income or parental education, get essentially no break in the admissions process; they fare neither better nor worse than other [white] applicants."

Distressing as many might consider this to be--since the same institutions that give no special consideration to poor white applicants boast about their commitment to "diversity" and give enormous admissions breaks to blacks, even to those from relatively affluent homes--Espenshade and Radford in their survey found the actual situation to be much more troubling. At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability). Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant's admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it. The opposite class trend was seen among non-whites, where the poorer the applicant the greater the probability of acceptance when all other factors are taken into account. Class-based affirmative action does exist within the three non-white ethno-racial groupings, but among the whites the groups advanced are those with money.

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

Poor Non-White Students: "Counting Twice"

The enormous disadvantage incurred by lower-class whites in comparison to non-whites and wealthier whites is partially explained by Espenshade and Radford as a result of the fact that, except for the very wealthiest institutions like Harvard and Princeton, private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing "racial minorities." Poor whites are apparently given little weight as enhancers of campus diversity, while poor non-whites count twice in the diversity tally, once as racial minorities and a second time as socio-economically deprived. Private institutions, Espenshade and Radford suggest, "intentionally save their scarce financial aid dollars for students who will help them look good on their numbers of minority students." Quoting a study by NYU researcher Mitchell Stevens, they write: "ultimate evaluative preference for members of disadvantaged groups was reserved for applicants who could be counted in the college's multicultural statistics. This caused some admissions officers no small amount of ethical dismay."

There are problems, however, with this explanation. While it explains why scarce financial aid dollars might be reserved for minority "twofers," it cannot explain why well-qualified lower-class whites are not at least offered admission without financial aid. The mere offer of admission is costless, and at least a few among the poor whites accepted would probably be able to come up with outside scholarship aid. But even if they couldn't, knowing they did well enough in their high school studies to get accepted to a competitive private college would surely sit well with most of them even if they couldn't afford the high tuition. Espenshade and Radford do not address this conundrum but the answer is easy to discern. The ugly truth is that most colleges, especially the more competitive private ones, are fiercely concerned with their ratings by rating organizations like U.S. News & World Report. And an important part of those ratings consist of a numerical acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received to those accepted) and a yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll). The lower the acceptance rate and the higher the yield score the more favorably colleges are looked upon. In extending admissions to well-qualified but financially strapped whites who are unlikely to enroll, a college would be driving both its acceptance rate and its yield score in the wrong direction. Academic bureaucrats rarely act against either their own or their organization's best interests (as they perceive them), and while their treatment of lower-class whites may for some be a source of "no small amount of ethical dismay," that's just how it goes. Some of the private colleges Espenshade and Radford describe would do well to come clean with their act and admit the truth: "Poor Whites Need Not Apply!"

Besides the bias against lower-class whites, the private colleges in the Espenshade/Radford study seem to display what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study's treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities -- including community service activities, performing arts activities, and "cultural diversity" activities -- conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant's chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here -- every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.

But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call "career-oriented activities" was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student's chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. "Being an officer or winning awards" for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, "has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions." Excelling in these activities "is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission."

Espenshade and Radford don't have much of an explanation for this find, which seems to place the private colleges even more at variance with their stated commitment to broadly based campus diversity. In his Bakke ruling Lewis Powell was impressed by the argument Harvard College offered defending the educational value of a demographically diverse student body: "A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer." The Espenshade/Radford study suggests that those farm boys from Idaho would do well to stay out of their local 4-H clubs or FFA organizations -- or if they do join, they had better not list their membership on their college application forms. This is especially true if they were officers in any of these organizations. Future farmers of America don't seem to count in the diversity-enhancement game played out at some of our more competitive private colleges, and are not only not recruited, but seem to be actually shunned. It is hard to explain this development other than as a case of ideological and cultural bias.

This same kind of bias seems to lurk behind the negative association found between acceptance odds and holding leadership positions in high school ROTC. This is most troubling because a divorce between the campus culture of its universities and its military is poisonous for any society, and doesn't do the military or the civilian society any good. The lack of comfort with many military commanders that our current president is said to have seems to be due not only to his own lack of military experience but to the fact of having spent so many of his formative years on university campuses like Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago, where people with military experience are largely absent and the campus culture is often hostile to military values and military personnel.

In an attempt to find out what kind of diversity exists -- or doesn't exist -- on the Princeton University campus, I once asked students in a ten-member discussion group to raise their hands if they knew one or more Princeton undergraduates who had served a year or more on active military duty (in the late 1940s or early 1950s, of course, undergraduates at Princeton would have encountered legions of such people coming back from WWII and the Korean War). I made it plain that I wasn't asking if the students had a close friend or roommate who was a veteran, just a single person with military experience that they had at sometime encountered during their Princeton undergraduate careers. Only one student -- a female -- raised her hand: this student once met someone who had served in the Israeli military. On a second occasion I asked this question to a larger group and again only one hand went up -- this student once met a Princeton undergraduate who had served in the Turkish military.

Many universities, including Princeton, are interested in enrolling foreign students, along with students from disparate regions of the U.S. But the more competitive private universities seem to have little interest in diversifying their student bodies when it comes to people who have served in the American military or people who intend to make a career out of military service. Even if they don't shun such people, or hold their military service or aspirations against them, they clearly don't seek them out or court them the way they do "underrepresented" racial minorities. And while many universities host college-level ROTC programs (often for financial reasons), the military/civilian relationship on campus is usually far from amicable.

Military veterans and aspiring military officers, like poor whites and future American farmers, are clearly not what most competitive private colleges have in mind when they speak of the need for "diversity". If nothing else the new Espenshade/Radford study helps to document what knowledgeable observers have long known: "diversity" at competitive colleges today involves a politically engineered stew of different groups. drawn from the ingredients selected by reigning campus ideology. Since that ideology is mainly dictated by the Left, it is no surprise that the diversity achieved is what the larger American landscape looks like when it is viewed through a leftist lens. I suggest a different approach: elite colleges should get out of the diversity business altogether and focus on enrolling students who are the most academically talented and the most eager to learn. These students should make up the bulk of their entering classes. Call it the Cal Tech Model since the California Institute of Technology seems to be the only elite institution that comes close to realizing such an ideal. Or call it the U.S. Olympic Team Model, or the Major League All-Stars Model, since it is based on the same strict merit-selection principle governing our Olympic sports teams and our major league baseball all-star teams. Let the diversity chips fall where they may and focus on recruiting the most intelligent, most creative, and most energetic of the rising generation of young people. In my naive way this is what I always thought elite universities were supposed to be about.

Russell K. Nieli received his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Princeton University and currently works for Princeton's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He has been a lecturer in Princeton's Politics Department and for ten years was an academic adviser to Princeton freshmen.

Thursday, February 06, 2014

Youth Beaten to Death in India After Mistaken as Chinese

Nido Tania, a 19 year old Indian freshman in a private university from northeastern area, was new to the capital city New Delhi. He walked in a corner store in Lajpat Nagar, and asked the shopkeeper for directions. The shopkeeper thought he was a Chinese, and with help from some friends, beat Tania to death with 'sticks and steel rods'.

An Indian youth was beaten to death in the capital city of India, because he looked like a Chinese. And it went even worse, when police in New Delhi didn't care.

Tania was from a region Arunachal Pradesh near India's border to China. People from there look like Chinese. As a matter of fact, they are actually Chinese as the territory had been claimed by the Chinese government to be part of China. Regardless, it's shocking to learn that you could be beaten to death just because of your look.

Sophy Chamroy, a 22 year old college student, who also comes from that region said incidents like this 'happened every day in Delhi'. Recently there were three other cases when students from that region was beaten. In a fourth case, a 21 year old beautician was killed. 'We have little faith in the Delhi police', said Albina Subba an advertising writer from that region.

Police was at the scene on Jan 30, 2014 when Tania was beaten by the New Delhi shopkeeper but did not take action. When the police left, Tania was beaten again, and died the next day due to injury to his head and chest. Discrimination against students from northeast had been so pervasive and sever that the parliament specifically passed an anti-racial law. Nevertheless, local police chose to follow their heart/hatred against Chinese looking kids.

Indian police have not taken action, as of this time. According to media report on Feb 5, 2014, Delhi police refused to submit a postmortem report, which would be needed to trigger a criminal investigation. They are so proud of beating a Chinese looking youth, even when he came from northeastern India, as if they defeated a real Chinese army.

Students from northeastern regions have been protesting in Delhi. They message they heard, so far, has been 'go back to China'.