Asian Turned Away from Mud Run at Camp Pendleton

Chinese Daily reported that a group of four Chinese Americans were turned away from the "World Famous Mud Run" at MCCS Camp Pendleton at June 14, 2015.

Four Chinese Americans of Riverside, California went to the mud run. After they passed the camp gate with their valid IDs, they were stopped and questioned at the mud run field by a cop. They cop asked to checked their ID, which they complied. Then the cop said no camera was allowed, pointing to a camera carried by one of the four. Obviously cameras are allowed. Then the cop asked whether they were military or family members of the military. He said only military or their families were allowed to participate the mud run. Which is not the case, as this is a public event. They the cop asked whether they had registered for the run, and said only those who had pre-registered could participate. Which is not the case, as there are on-site registrations.

In the end, the cop said the Chinese Americans would not be allowed entrance the mud run because they looked like terrorists. The Chinese Americans were escorted out by military police.

The Princeton Dude Needs to Check his Facts

A Princeton freshman found himself under the liberal bombardment because of a paper he wrote on his family past. In the paper, Tal Fortgang, a grandson of Polish Jewish immigrants who worked their butts off with a clear vision to support their family and see their children success. Tal did not understand the bias against white people who earned their success through hard work with a deep believe in education and family value. Fortgang concluded his paper "Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege" which was published by the Princeton Tory journal in April with the sentence ".. I apologize for nothing."

Having a discussion is always a better scenario then suppressing any idea that is not officially endorsed. Mr. Fortgang is brave to touch a very sensitive and often volatile topic. However, the possible history or political science major needs some training in fact checking before speaking out in public. For one, if not thanks to Affirmative Action and Princeton University's distorted admission standard, Mr. Fortgang probably wouldn't even be able to find a seat on the privileged campus.

In the article, Fortgang recounted his parents's immigration to the US, "a country that grants equal protection under the law to its citizens". This history major should have heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law passed by the US federal government and signed by the President of the United States, to specifically suppress Chinese Americans. No, there was never anything close to this to any other groups of ethnics, not Africans, not Hispanics, not Polish nor Jews.

Fortgang needs to look back no further than seven years, when a Chinese student Jian Li filed a civil complaint against Princeton University, after denied admission because of his race.

In response, the Daily Princetonian, who billed itself the second college newspaper in the nation to publish daily since 1892, ridiculed Li with a parody, which mocked Li's parents for doing hard labor in a Chinese restaurant to support their children's education. The article goes like this in an obvious broken English perceived spoke by illiterate Chinese Americans such as restaurant operators, and the Seagull quoted here

"I so good at math and science...My dad from Kung Pao Province....Lots of bulldogs here for me to eat."

It is worth noting that this piece of dog shit was endorsed by then Princetonian editor in chief Chanakya Sethi, and supported by a Harvard student journalist Sahik K Mahtani, both Indian. There is no secret that Chinese and Indian are the two groups who directly compete at all fronts in the US. Therefore on one side it's a pity Indians could go so low, on the other side, it's a shame the Princeton University knows how to play a house underclass to fence off a filed underclass.

The Princeton University tried to launch a smear campaign to throw the stereotype of first generation Chinatown Chinese restaurant workers on a promising young scholar. In the real world, Jian Li graduated top 1% from Livingston High School, which has been consistently ranked a top school in the US. Li scored 2400 on the SAT, as well as perfect or near-perfect scores SAT subject tests in Math Level 2, Physics, and Chemistry.

Recent peered reviewed academic papers showed that with all other factors equal, it took Chinese a whole 50 more points in SAT then white students to get admitted by elite universities because of the racially motivated quota system imposed by schools such as the Princeton University.

Mr. Fortgang and his peers alike at the Princeton University better take a good look at the reflections from the puddle of their own pee, and ask themselves this question: would they have gotten where they were, if it were not their skin color?

Will Yale University Do this to an African American Student?

Frances Chan, an Asian American student majoring in History was threatened by officials at Yale University that she would be kicked out of the school, because she was not heavy enough, according to report by the Huffington Post, New Haven Register.

The Asian American student stands 5 ft 2 tall, and weights 92 lbs. Despite having lived a healthy life, the University simply does not like how much she weights. Obviously she is not as heavy as most white girls, even though 92 lbs and 5 ft 2 is not an unusual combination among people with a skin color of Asians.

Yale University forced the student to check in weekly for weigh-ins. Chan was forced to bury herself with junk food such as Cheetos, cookies and ice cream. Whenever possible, she was forced to take elevator rather than taking stairs. Her family talked to the University, even had her childhood doctor talked to the University, as well as had her medical record shared with the University. The University couldn't be pleased.

Yale does not like how she looks. She does not look as heavy as what Yale likes to see.

The million dollar questions being that whether Yale would do the same to other students who look different from a desired figure (the Lebensborn project anyone cares to recall)? Is Asian the easy target for its hard to contain unresting internal urge of discrimination?

Frankly we could care less about discrimination or in particular a systematic attitude of discrimination at Yale. Be real, if you don't see it at other places you must be blind. The problem is: after several months of forced eating of junk food, the Asian girl is reporting a real eating disorder. What can she do?

Chinese Hate Chinese The Most

It's no secret that Chinese hates Chinese the most, at least that has been the case for as long as Chinese written language in existence, which is blood 8,000 years. The last Empress Dowager Cixi famously stated that she would rather provide for neighbor countries rather than Chinese people.

The Qinghua University in Beijing was set up with a refund of War Indemnity from the United States. Ever since its born, the school had been proud of being a pareration academy for western universities.

In a job ad for faculty positions in Immunology The Qinghua University posted with Nature Magazine, it states that Non-Chinese native candidates are particularly encouraged to apply. This is for positions in Immunology, a field Chinese can not, and must not master.

We invite applications from outstanding immunologists who aim to conduct systematic, innovative research. Non-Chinese native candidates are particularly encouraged to apply (English is an official language in scientific discussions). Candidates should have a demonstrable record of excellence in areas including but not limited to inflammasome, innate lymphocytes, immune memory, human and clinical immunology, microbiota and mucosal immunity, and animal disease models. Successful applicants will be offered very generous start-up packages plus internationally competitive salaries and housing benefits.

What puzzles readers of the magazine is why Nature endorses this kind of language which is discriminative inside out. Although Nature is a British magazine, it has offices in the US. Discrimination based on race and country of origin is textbook case illegal. In other words, Nature risks of being sanctioned by a court of law to label a premier Chinese university of Barbarianism. That makes Nature a racist, too.

The University of Toledo Sued by Chinese Student on Discrimination

Chinese student Zhong Wanyun 'Emily' and her husband Liu Yizhou filed a legal complaint in the Lucas County Common Pleas Court against the University of Toledo and a professor Dr. Vijay Devabhaktuni on August 30, 2013.

Zhong et al vs. Devabhaktuni et al. (CI-0201304183) alleging being intentionally and purposefully harassed, humiliated and frightened, including threatening with shooting with a gun. The professor also called the plaintiff an idiot along other abusive languages. The case alleged patterns of discrimination against Chinese students in classroom even after repeated protests.

The professor was placed on administrative leave after the incidents were made known. However, no future actions were taken when the professor did not follow the school sanctions.

The claims include:
1. Race or Ethnicity Discrimination
2. Harassment and Verbal Assault
3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
5. Breach of Contract
6. Civil Rights Deprivation
7. Loss of Consortium

Dr. Vijay Devabhaktuni is an associate professor with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Toledo. Dr. Devabhaktuni received the B. Eng degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and the M. Sc. Degree in Physics both from the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, Rajasthan, India. Dr. Devabhaktuni's specialities are applied electromagnetics, biomedical applications of wireless sensor networks, computer aided design, among others.

The University of Toledo is public university in the state of Ohio. It is listed in the US News & World Report's college ranking as 'calculated by not published' national university.

As a public institution, if lost the case, the taxpayers in Ohio will foot the bill for the University of Toledo on this discrimination case.

Chilling Details in Vassar College Discrimination Case Against Chinese Students

It could sound worse than we had already heard in the case we reported a few days back, a story in which a promising Chinese student was expelled from Vassar College because of a consensual sexual relationship between the Chinese student and a white female student.

But as they always say, devils are in the details. If the summary sentence is shocking, the details in the legal complaint is desperately depressing.

Peter Yu picked Vassar over other schools where he had gained admission, including Wesleyan College, Bates College and Carnegie Mellon University. A big mistake he should regret in the rest of his life. With his 98% SAT, 4.19 GPA, numerous accolades in scholastic and athletic, 9 credits AP, only sky is the limit. Today, Yu has nowhere to go, with his record forever ruined by the expulsion with a serious sexual accusation.

After the night of sexual encounter between the two, which was clearly consensual based on the facts listed in the lawsuit, including witnesses accounts and, most damaging, text messages between the two in the year after that night, the duo continued to row together and see each other. A few month later, Walker invited Yu for a family dinner.

No one knows for sure what made the female student decided to press charge against Yu on non-consensual sex offense over one year later out of blue. However, what Vassar College did after that makes everyone who read through the complaint speechless.

Vassar College went out of its way to make sure Peter Yu suffer for no reason. The College denied calling witnesses. Vassar College against its own bylaw, denied having a student sitting in the hearing panel upon Yu's request. Vassar College hid evidence (testimonies from Yu's roommate who saw Walker having sex with Yu and Walker's roommate who was called by Walker to arrange a place for the sex) and refused to admit the most important evidence, those text messages exchanged between the two. Vassar College refused to allow Yu to question Walker in the hearing. To top all of these appalling discriminating actions, Vassar falsified its own procedures and expelled Yu on Section 20.2, which he was never charged with. Yu was charge with Section 20.1 and all the hearings were about Section 20.1.

By all accounts, if one shred of the evidence alleged in the complaint were true, Vassar College must still live in 1840, the peak of segregation. Vassar College's persecution against Yu, a Chinese student who had consensual sex with a white female, resembles nothing but a lynching out of hatred and ignorance.

Where are Chinese ambassador and consul generals? Where are the Chinese community leaders in New York? Where are Chinese media?

While the spokesperson of Vassar College bragged about its legal mighty, a real lawsuit outside the US in a fair court, where laws are followed and evidence are allowed to be presented will show its true color to the entire world, including to people in the US. Chinese should welcome a lawsuit in Peter Yu's hometown Dalian, China or in Beijing since it's an international case.

Vassar College probably could care less on media exposure in China. With its over $800 million endowment, it has more financial power to skip China. Perhaps it calculates that it may appeal to donors of white extremists by making its case with Peter Yu, and build its financial model upon this view.

The female student named in the lawsuit, Ms. Mary Claire Walker, remains a student at Vassar College. A male white student, who is not named and who was actually accused of Section 20.2 three months earlier, remains a student at Vassar College.

Chinese Student Expelled by Vassar College Sued for Discrimination

The New York Post reported that a Chinese student from Dalian Xiaolu 'Peter' Yu was expelled by Vassar College after a white student Mary Claire Walker accused him of rape.

Yu said the College was wrong, and his recollection of the incident was: on the night of Feb 18, 2012, the two teammates of the Vassar College rowing team were at a team party. The two agreed to have sex after the party, and they did.

For unknown reason, one year later, Walker informed school officials that Yu raped her that night. Vassar College expelled Yu on Walker's words.

Yu claimed the sex was 'clearly consensual' because:

• Walker called her roommate to find out whether they could have sex at her dorm room, and when it was not an option, they walked together to Yu's room.
• Walker assured Yu, a virgin at the time, that she knew 'what to do', and started by performing oral sex on him. Then she put a condom on him, before the two conducted intercourse.
• When Yu's roommate returned, Walker made a comment on how she 'took Peter Yu's virginity' before dressed and left.
• The next day, Walker sent Yu a message through Facebook saying she 'had a wonderful time'.

Having had his life dismantled at age 20, Yu filed a complaint in Manhattan federal court against Vassar College on grounds of discrimination.

One picture featured on Walker's Facebook cover page was a word expansion of her own name: "Mad, Adorable, Romantic, Young, Crazy, Lethal, Adorable, Innocent, Rich", along a quote from Walt Disney, "It's kind of fun to do the impossible'.

A spokesman for Vassar College indicated that attorneys of the school had provided 'strong legal ground'. Vassar has an endowment over $800 million.

Unlike peer elite liberal arts colleges which are often found crowded with foreign students, less than 10% of Vassar's student population comes from overseas. Perhaps, there was a reason. But probably, it no longer matters. This lawsuit looks really bad for the small rural college in upstate New York. Most likely, the name had already been crossed out by many college shopping parents from non-white families, by now.

Asian Americans Called on SCOUS to End Discrimination in College Admission

It was filed on behalf of the 80-20 National Asian-American Educational Foundation, the National Federation of Indian American Associations, the Indian American Forum for Political Education, the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. (The latter group focuses on discrimination against Jewish Americans, and the brief argues that today's admissions policies have the same impact on Asian-American applicants as previous generations' policies had on Jewish applicants.)

The brief focuses heavily on research studies such as the work that produced the 2009 book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life (Princeton University Press), which argued that -- when controlling for various factors -- one could find the relative "advantage" in admissions of members of different ethnic and racial groups.

The book suggested that private institutions essentially admit black students with SAT scores 310 points below those of comparable white students. And the book argued that Asian-American applicants need SAT scores 140 points higher than those of white students to stand the same chances of admission. The brief also quotes from accounts of guidance counselors and others (including this account in Inside Higher Ed) talking about widely held beliefs in high schools with many Asian-American students that they must have higher academic credentials than all others to gain admission to elite institutions.

via Inside Higher Ed

Kansas State University Student Newspaper Publish Hate Speech Towards Chinese Students on Campus

Kansas State University's Kansas State Collegian published an article authored by a staff writer Sean Frye regarding on campus population of international students from 'enemy' states, which include Afghanistan, China, Iran and Turkey.

The article made some factual error in its findings. For example, it alleges 'taxpayer's money', as large as $6.9 million in a year, was used to educate students from countries that have 'outwardly said they do not appreciate the U.S.'. On the contrary, foreign students pay at a much higher tuition, which is essential and instrumental at the time being to sustain the higher education systems in the State of Kansas. As a matter of fact, that was the reason local resident could afford to go to colleges.

The article fell short of calling foreign students on campus at Kansas State University spies, but indeed pointed out that these students 'could take the knowledge they obtained back to a country that the U.S. does not get along with.'

The article pointed out that on campus at KSU, 938 students come from China. It then proclaimed China will 'undoubtedly become enemies of the U.S.' The author concluded with a statement that 'taxpayer money should not be spent to educate students who could in the near future become the enemy'.

By citing wrong data, after applying wrong logic, this article successfully created a hostile environment for a group of students to study and work on campus at Kansas State University. These students were targeted on one factor, that is their origin of country.

The Kansas State Collegian is the campus students newspaper endorsed and sponsored by the Kansas State University through office space contribution and redistribution of student activity fees, among other financial resources provided by the University. The daily publication is distributed throughout the campus. Because of its wide circulation across KSU campus, it is the ninth largest daily newspaper in the entire State of Kansas. Based on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier and Hosty v. Carter, KSU as the endorser and sponsor, as well as the educators and the administration of the campus, may have a duty of prior review of this widely distributed publication. However, inaction by the Kansas State University administration is not a relief on the duty of the editorial board of the Kansas State Collegian.

The Kansas State Collegian advocated and spread hatred against foreign students, including Chinese students by the publication and circulation of this article authored by a staff writer, both in printed form and as an online edition. Chinese students who are studying at the Kansas State University are targeted exclusively because of their national origin. The publication and wide circulation of this article on the Kansas State Collegian created an intimidating, hostile and offensive academic environment on campus of the Kansas State University. The publication and circulation of this article constitutes a distraction and obstacles for Chinese students to continue their study in classroom and on campus of the Kansas State University.

The Seagull recommend this advocate and spreading of hatred towards a group of students because of their national origin be investigated by the Kansas State University. The University has an obligation to report this rare but severe incident of discriminatory harassment incidence to the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education. The Seagull also recommend the faculty Self-Study group to include this incidents in their Self-Study Report to be presented to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association during their upcoming site visit on April 9-11, 2012.

Public universities should not accept students from countries that have bad relations with US

By Sean Frye staff writer
Published: Friday, February 24, 2012
Updated: Sunday, February 26, 2012 13:02

Here on campus, there are currently 1,851 international students, consisting of 1,045 undergraduates and 717 graduate students, according to the International Student and Scholar Services page on K-State's website. During the fall 2011 semester, there were 1,856 international students. Of that number, 972 students were from Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq or Turkey. China had the highest number of students, with 938.

What stands out about those five countries is that the United States does not have good relations with any of those nations.

So why does K-State, or any other university in the country, willingly choose to spend money on resources to educate students who could take the knowledge they obtained back to a country the U.S. does not get along with?

Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are not allies with the U.S. for reasons surrounding the war on terror as well as problems before that, dating back to before the Gulf War. China and its communist regime has always had a rocky relationship with the U.S. and Turkey's relationship with the U.S. has deteriorated due to Turkey's displeasure with the Iraq War.

It is disappointing to know that, while international students are an integral presence on campus, 52 percent of them come from a country that has outwardly said they do not appreciate the U.S.

According to the K-State 2011-12 fiscal year budget, which can be found on K-State's website, K-State receives $161.8 million in state appropriations and $9.4 million in federal land-grant funds.

In those two categories alone, the university receives $171.2 million in tax dollars from the state of Kansas and the U.S. government.

In the fall of 2011, there were 23,863 students enrolled at K-State. Divide the total dollar amount evenly by the number of students and that shows that just over $7,000 in government funding is being spent to educate an individual student on campus.

Multiply that by 972, and that equals out to $6.9 million. That means nearly $7 million in government funding is spent to educate international students from nations that are not friendly with the U.S.

Debates rage on as to whether China is an adversary to the U.S. or not. Simply put, though, for as long as China remains under communist rule, it will be under the careful watch of the American government. In an April 30, 2011, article by Paul Kix on The Daily Beast website, the International Monetary Fund projects that China will have the world's largest economy and will be the next world superpower by 2016.

If a world superpower is under a communist regime, then they will undoubtedly become enemies of the U.S. The Cold War, Vietnam War and Korean War were all based on stopping the spread of communism.

Do not get it twisted, I am not saying people from these countries or the students here at K-State from these countries are all evil or should be treated as such.

I had a conversation with Patrick Sweeney, head women's rowing coach, who is from Great Britain. He said in his travels around the world, he learned that people are virtually the same everywhere and have the same basic goals, and I can respect that.

My argument is that they shouldn't have been allowed to come here and study at a public university that receives government funds.

We cannot control the agenda of private universities, as they set their own agendas.

And quite frankly, they have the right to because they fund themselves. But public universities like K-State should not be allowed to educate students from a country which the U.S. has bad relations with, and legislation should be passed that dictates such.

I have nothing against citizens from Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq or Turkey. I just truly believe that nearly $7 million of taxpayer money should not be spent to educate students who could, in the near future, become the enemy.

The Root of Ethnic Problems in China

A rough translation of the article attached:

The root of the ethnic problems in China is the ethic policy adopted by the CCP.

1) Han people moved away from minority region because of the reverse discriminative policies. For example, children of Han will have to score 20 plus points (on 100 points) to compete with minority kids in college entrance exam.

2) In Mao time, many Han professionals were assigned to minority regions to assist local development. Now they are moving away when the Party can no longer control people's residence.

3) While professional fleeing away, local economy take the price. Nobody will invest in minority region.

4) Local companies dare not hire minority people, because they could walk away from any crime. Thus minorities suffers deeper economic gap comparing to local Han people. Han people are subject to the strict one child per family family planning project, while minority families are not. For an example, the president of the terrorist group behind this massacre, Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, has laid 11 children. While Ms. Rebiya Kadeer is a wealthy businesswomen, many ordinary minority family couldn't offer adequate support for their many children who would end up criminals on the street.

Neither the majority Han nor the minority Uyghur is happy. When there is a third force, such as the CIA got involved, the situation naturally exploded.

A good ethnic policy should protect fundamental rights of all people. A bias towards minority in terms of income, taxing, welfare is acceptable. However, it should extend to basic fairness regarding fundamental human rights. Minority should not be held above the law.

发信人: watcherjoe (momoren), 信区: ChinaNews
标 题: 西藏新疆民族问题的根本
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Jul 7 01:27:07 2009, 美东)

大家都知道根本上是少数民族政策惹得祸。

1 少数民族政策让有能力的汉人逃出少数民族区。原因就是反向歧视。俺妈当年就从民族区连搬三次家回到老家省份。愿意就是不想让自己的孩子在少数民族区里长大，原话是-中考高考一加就加20分，那一分就差出一级的学校。我孩子又不傻，凭什么非要比人差。我这十几年被少数民族区耽误了，我孩子决不能耽误。

2 汉人在由国家政策安排时，不得不进少数民族区支援边区，受反向歧视。这也就是为什么改革开放之前，新疆西藏内蒙等自治区经济文化和中国其他地方比差不多，有的因为国家政策还好些。80年以后，随着中国人迁移的自由增加，人才，尤其是当年的援边的高级人才，源源不断地流回内地，主要原因就是因为民族政策。当一个国家自由度增高，政策的召唤已经不管用了。趋利避害，是人之常情。

3 随着技术性和商业性的人才溜走，民族区的经济自然就无法和沿海以及内地相比。由于有民族政策的反向歧视，政府的招商引资也不会有太大效果，毕竟干企业没有人不行。

4 民族区的经济和内地差距的增大，反过来让少数民族认为汉人故意让少数民族没饭吃，没钱挣，再加上民族政策造成的一些维，藏坏分子对于汉人欺压的有恃无恐，更造成了即使在新疆本地，大国有企业和事业单位不敢招本地人。结果就是，少数民族区相对于内陆沿海的落后，区内少数民族相对于汉人的经济地位低下。长此以往，维，藏对汉，以及汉对维，藏的积怨造成了民族对立。再加上CIA在背后放火。干柴烈火，一点就着。

说到根上，民族政策是罪魁祸首。在整个社会国家逐渐更加自由的时候，任何歧视性的国家性政策的结果就是造成社会对立。中国人现在不是社会主义，共产主义理想就可以说服的了。当年共产主义时代的民族政策在现在的利益社会里，必须要改变，以达到对“中国人”的公平。对少数民族的优惠，可以在税收，社保和居住等日常生活利益上体现，但绝不应该在攸关人的生存权，发展权和社会公平性上。否则就是赤裸裸的歧视和有组织性的压迫，哪里有压迫，哪里就有反抗。中国如果不借此机会改变不公正的政策，最终结果不是维，藏大爆发，就是汉人大爆发。

--

※ 修改:·watcherjoe 於 Jul 7 02:05:49 2009 修改本文·[FROM: 99.14.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 99.14.]

Toys"R"Us/Babies"R"Us vs. Chinese American babies

Babies R Us held a contest of 'first baby in 2007', and the winner is a Chinese American girl born in a hospital in New York city. The prize, $25,000 US bonds for the girl's future education was withheld because the mother of the girl is an illegal immigrant. The prize was then given to an African American baby, the runner up.

The award in the form of US bonds is a scholarship that goes to the first American baby that's born at the starting of year 2007. The money will be available when the baby turns 18 years old.

The Seagull considers this a vivid case of discrimination on color. The money was intended for the child's education. The child is a legal US citizen. Her prize was taken away because of her mother's immigration status. This in fact created a second class citizen based on a person's parents, which is totally unacceptable.

After a month long protest and facing a lawsuit, Babies R Us decided to give equal prize to all top 3 babies. The correction was welcomed by some ethnic communities, while irritated some all through (as in the runner up baby's mother's words) Americans, and agonized criticism from some others, for example, Sean Hannity of the FOX News.