谴责《Macleans》「Not Too Asian」 华社人士Facebook设网页促道歉 

[b][/b][b][url=http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/10/too-asian/]‘Too Asian’?[/url][/b][b][/b] www2.macleans.ca 平权会全国总干事黄煜文表示，他跟该会多伦多分会的代表、展望青少年领袖培训计划，以及另外两个华社组织的代表，已于上周五跟《麦克琳》杂志的代表会面，就该文章所引来的争议进行了交流。对于是否要求杂志撤回报道、就报道向华社道歉，黄煜文则没透露，只证实对方是提出方案。他说，他正就对方的响应撰写报告，同时也在收集各界意见，然后向该会董事会建议应对方案，希望尽快给对方答复。 本周末也有华社人士在社交网站Facebook上，设立反对该文章「Not Too Asian」的网页，呼吁人们声援平权会今次谴责《麦克琳》的行动。该网页创立者声言要向该杂志追究到底，要对方向华社作出道歉，承认文章是带种族偏见的出错， 正如该杂志早前9月底因刊出「魁北克最腐败」文章后，激怒魁省全省上下而要向魁北克省民道歉一样。该网页在昨日开设了后，已有逾180人参加。 参加本次行动: [url=http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_174514912559573]http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_174514912559573[/url]

Not Too Asian To gather signatures/members in support of CCNC, Chinese Canadian National Council to hold Macleans accountable for its actions and poor journalistic taste to publish the article titled "Too Asian". Problem lists for Macleans: sub-standard journalism, editorial's lack of due diligence, willful undertone of racial stereotype in its reporting. To call on Rogers Communication, the parent company of Macleans, to correct and amend the mistakes Macleans made in its article. Background information: Rogers issued a public apology to the Quebec people for the story Macleans ran on its cover when the Editors refused to say sorry. It is my belief that Rogers sees "Not Too Asian" in their customer, workforce, and business partners around globe. 征集签名，谴责Macleans/Star.   支援CCNC. 声讨种族偏见 Macleans 母公司 Rogers Communication曾经为Macleans‘腐败的魁北克’ 的报道，向魁北克人民道歉。我们要求Rogers再次作出正确的行动。请公众及Rogers的客户，员工和商业伙伴一起加入我们的签名行动。谢谢！

[url=http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_174514912559573&view=doc&id=175245289153202][b]Learn how history was written 30 years ago, Read this![/b][/url] [b]30th September 1979:  30th Anniversary of Chinese Canadian Activism [/b] September 28th, 2009 by  Staff from [url=http://www.gingerpost.com/]www.gingerpost.com[/url] The Edmonton protest march against W5, January 26,1980 Chinese Canadians began a new chapter of political and social action  on 30th September 1979. Here is a digest of the events thirty years ago  described by Anthony B. Ch...an in his book Gold Mountain:  The Chinese in  the New World (Vancouver:  New Star Books, 1983).  Chinese Canadians  today can still learn many lessons from the Anti-W5 social movement.  Editor. On September 30, 1979, the CTV television network’s W5 public affairs  program aired a segment called “Campus Giveaway” which was to become  the focus of political activity that would shake the Chinese community  for the next two years.  The program’s blatant racism sparked a degree  of public wrath unprecedented in Canada’s Chinatowns. “Campus Giveaway” portrayed the Chinese as alien, inassimilable,  insular, and competitive.  As the camera panned across the faces of  students of Chinese ancestry, the show charged that 100,000 foreign  students had descended on Canada’s campuses, squeezing white Canadian  students out of places in the professional schools. CTV’s message was plain – the Chinese were foreigners regardless of  their birthplace.  Reminiscent of the chargers against early Chinese  labourers, the students were accused of coming to Canada to milk the  country of its wealth and resources.  After using Canada’s educational  facilities, these “foreigners” would flee to China and Hong Kong with  professional degrees financed by the Canadian taxpayer.  The Chinese  were yet again pictured as transient, as exploiter, as sojourner.  The  opening remarks of W5 host Helen Hutchinson conveyed a message of a new  Chinese threat: Here is a scenario that would make a great many people in this  country angry and resentful.  Suppose your son or daughter wanted to be  an engineer, or a doctor, or a     pharmacist.  Suppose he had high marks  in high school, and that you could pay the tuition – he still couldn’t  get into university in his chosen courses because a foreign student was  taking his place.  Well, that is exactly what is happening in this  country. The opening statement was a deliberate attempt to incite mistrust and  hostility towards “foreigners.”  With the camera focused on Chinese  faces, there was no doubt to whom Hutchinson was referring. To back up its allegations, W5 stated that 100,000 foreign students  were crowding Canadian universities.  The actual number of foreign  students in Canada was 55,000 at all levels of education, including only  20,000 in full-time university studies. Another statistical distortion involved Barbara Allan, the heroine of  “Campus giveaway.”  She was portrayed as an aspiring pharmacist who was  rejected by the faculty of pharmacy at the University of Toronto  because a foreign student had taken her place. While Helen Hutchinson narrated Allan’s emotional outcry again  foreign students, CTV’s cameras roamed the classroom searching out  Chinese faces.  It isolated six Chinese students:  Steven Ng, Teresa  Chu, Doris Ng, Faye Wong, Betty Cheung, and Jennifer Lee.  Jennifer Lee  was born in Canada, and the rest were citizens, thus eligible for  admission to the pharmacy program.  The pharmacy faculty admits Ontario  residents only:  visa or foreign students are barred. Barbara Allan was also eligible for admission to the professional  school.  According to Dr. E.W. Stied, the associate dean of pharmacy:   “If she had had the marks she said she did, she would have been  accepted.  But, according to our records she didn’t have those marks.” Yet, few viewers knew the facts.  To them, Barbara Allan appeared as  the victim of a yellow horde taking away her “rightful” place in the  university.  The emotional impact of “Campus Giveaway” struck at the  hearts of the white audience who could sympathize with Allan, a young  woman in anguish because her ambitions were snuffed out by the  villainous foreign (read “Chinese”) students. At the heart of “Campus Giveaway” was the allegation that foreign  students were taking the places of white Canadians in job-directed  programs such as pharmacy, computer science, engineering, and medicine.   Since the foreign faces in the report were Chinese, W5’s implication  was that all students of Chinese origin were foreigners, and that  Canadian taxpayers were subsidizing Chinese students – who would never  be truly Canadian, regardless of their birth or citizenship. Initial reaction to the show in Chinese communities across Canada was  subdued.  The workers in the Chinatowns and the professionals in the  suburbs were preoccupied with their own lives.  Some Chinese even missed  the allegations of a few vocal students that the program was racist in  tone and effect. While Chinatown and suburbia slept, these students – both Canadian  and foreign – bombarded the CTV with protest letters.  Forming small  study groups, the students initiated a publicity campaign to enlist  wider community support.  They also sought legal advice to determine  whether CTV had libelled and slandered Chinese Canadians. By November,  the apathy among Chinese about the W5 issue had changed to support and  sympathy.  This transformation was spearheaded by the students  themselves, led by Norman Kwan. The traditional representatives and leaders of the Chinese community,  who had gained a high profile because of their business or political  connections, shied away from the W5 controversy.  Believing that the  students’ talk of a libel suit would upset the status quo and endanger  their own personal interests, they dismissed the students’ grievances as  the fulminations of a radical group. Preserving the status quo was not in the interests of the new group  of professionals now gaining prominence in the Chinese community.  One  of these was a physician named Donald Chu.  Later to become the  chairperson of the Toronto chapter of the anti-W5 movement, Chu was  driven to attack W5 because of his “belief in equal rights for all  Canadians.”  Part of the progressive element of the Chinese Canadian  intelligentsia that was schooled in Canada, Chu and others rallied  firmly behind the students, taking part in an Ad Hoc Committee Against  W5. Represented on the Ad Hoc Committee were the Association of Chinese  Canadian Students and Graduates, Chinese Canadians for Mutual  Advancement, Action Committee for Refugees in Southeast Asia (ACRSEA),  Asianadian Resource Workshop, and the Council of Chinese Canadians in  Ontario.  ACRSEA was especially important in the development of a  volunteer organization that would provide the human resources for the Ad  Hoc Committee. Ad Hoc Committee workers distributed pamphlets and leaflets and spoke  to church gatherings, social groups, community forums, and political  rallies throughout the Toronto area.  They wrote letters to politicians,  ministers, and newspapers. They sent representatives to show a tape of  “Campus Giveaway” to influential people in various positions of power. By the second week in December, the campaign had yielded only meagre  results.  The Ad Hoc Committee decided to try a different approach.  The  protest of ink on paper now gave way to the tactics of direct  confrontation – street demonstrations and picketing. The question of legal action had already been investigated by the  students.  Having called on the expertise of a Toronto lawyer with an  impressive civil rights record, the students told the committee that a  lawsuit could be successful. On December 19, 1979, a rally at the Cecil Community Centre revealed  that the W5 issue had united the Chinese community regardless of  occupation and political persuasion.  The auditorium was filled to  capacity for a screening of “Campus Giveaway.”  Matrons in black silk  jackets, ambitious young lawyers, Chinese Benevolent Association  members, aging bachelors from a forgotten era, fashionably dressed  students, and small children clutching their parents’ hands crammed into  the 200 seats and line the walls.  From every corner of the Toronto  Chinese community the W5 issue had brought out the previously  uncommitted, apathetic, and the sceptical.  The atmosphere was electric  with the anticipation of momentous developments. The Cecil meeting demonstrated the depth of the community’s feelings  about the Ad Hoc Committee’s campaign.  Many began to believe that a  united community dedicated to achieving clear-cut goals could be  victorious.     At its first meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee set three objectives: •    to demand a public apology from CTV and an equal opportunity to  present a fair and accurate report to repair the damages done by the W5  program; •    to take the necessary steps to ensure that CTV does not air similar  programs misrepresenting and damaging the image of any ethno-cultural  group; •    to educate the public about the contributions of the Chinese Canadians to Canadian society. The Cecil turnout convinced the Ad Hoc Committee to stage a peaceful  demonstration in Toronto, the media heartland of the country.  The plan  was to hold a mass rally on January 26, 1980, in the education building  on the University of Toronto campus. Then, the protesters would march on  the CTV headquarters about a mile away. The federal election then impending helped attract twenty speakers  representing all the political parties to the rally.  Ron Atkey, the  incumbent minister of employment and immigration, did not show but his  surrogate told the crowd of 1,000 which packed the auditorium that W5  “was unfair to the extreme” because “the majority of the foreign  students came from Europe and the USSR.” Politicians Bob Kaplan, Bob Rae, Peter Stollery, John Foster, and  Eric Jackson denounced the CTV program.  John Sewell, the mayor of  Toronto, called for police and media reform “if we are to create a  country where we all feel at home.”  He blasted the CTV program as “a  serious insult to the educational aspirations of Canadians who are not  white.” Wilson Head, president of the National Black Coalition, told the  predominantly Chinese audience that “CTV did you a favour in arousing in  you a need to fight back. . . . No one gives you freedom.  It is won in  struggle.” George Bancroft, an education professor, got the most enthusiastic  response when he said:  “At the University of Toronto we give grades  ranging through A, B, C, D, and F for failure.  But I would not give W5  an A, B, C, D, or F.  I would give it a P. . .  I mean P for pollution  in its facts.  I mean pollution in analysis.  Pollution must be cleaned  up.  W5’s pollution must be removed!  Its pollution must be eradicated.”   When he sat down, the usually subdued Chinese Canadians gave a  deafening ovation. The roused audience, inspired by these speeches, emptied into the  street, where they were met by about 1,500 more protesters.  Pickets  were unveiled and slogans echoed in the bitterly cold air: CTV Apologize Now!     Red, Brown, Black Yellow, and White – We Canadians Must Unite     Biased Show, W5 Got to go! Marching four abreast, the demonstrators headed for the CTV’s  national headquarters.  The crowd was mostly Chinese but people from  many other ethnic groups in Toronto were there to lend support.  Here  was multiculturalism in action – ethnic people defending the rights of  all Canadians. In front of the CTV office, Donald Chu told the protesters that the  W5 program “encourages stereotyping and discrimination in a  multicultural society under the guise of freedom of speech.  It is  irresponsible journalism that must be suppressed.  We need all Canadians  to support the cause and promote mutual understanding.  We’ll keep up  the pressure through all avenues . . . by peaceful means, of course.” Toronto was not the only scene of picketing and protest against CTV.   On the same day, more than 500 demonstrators marched in the bitter cold  on CTV’s Edmonton affiliate, CFRN.  The protest, lead by the Ad Hoc  Committee of Chinese Canadians in Edmonton Against W5 was supported by  groups from Calgary and Vancouver. In the post-rally days Ad Hoc committees were formed in Winnipeg,  Regina, Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon and Halifax.  This type of social  movement was unprecedented in Chinese Canadian history.  The Chinese  community, once stereotyped as passive and docile, was now  action-oriented and conscious of its own democratic rights. CTV was disturbed by the unfavourable publicity generated by the  Chinese community across Canada, and requested a meeting.  Held on  February 4 and attended by the leaders of the Toronto committee and the  network’s vice president and executive Don Cameron, and Lionel Lumb  (producer of “Campus Giveaway”), the meeting produced nothing concrete. On February 11, the Toronto committee and the five student plaintiffs  hired lawyer Ian Scott as their negotiator.  The Ad Hoc Committee’s  decision to use a lawyer was a reminder to the CTV that legal action was  imminent if the network did not negotiate sincerely and seriously. While the Ad Hoc Committees across Canada filed complaints to  provincial and federal human rights bodies and amassed 20,000 signatures  on a petition protesting the W5 program, CTV tried to diffuse the  movement by issuing a statement of “regret.” The March 16 statement set off a national reaction among the Ad Hoc  Committees.  The Vancouver local committee asserted that CTV’s “regret”  was “wholly inadequate to redress the damage done by the story to the  Chinese Canadian community.”  The major problem with the CTV statement,  the Vancouver group continued, was the “no fault is admitted other than  the admission that one of the statistics quoted in the story was in  error, and even the admission is qualified.  The impression thus created  by the statement is that the Chinese Canadian community has launched a  deep and vociferous nation-wide protest over a single statistical error.   This is in itself condescending and insulting to all the many good  Canadians who have joined the protest.  The error admitted was only of  the many faults of the story and it was far from the worst. . . . There  is no indication in the statement that W5 really understands what was  wrong with the story in the first place.” The Toronto Ad Hoc committee decided to mount a sustained campaign  against CTV and called together the fifteen committees across the  country for a meeting in Toronto.  The strategy behind this gathering  was to demonstrate to CTV that the anti-W5 movement embraced Chinese  communities throughout Canada. While plans were going ahead for the April 18 to 20 national meeting,  CTV and the Toronto Ad Hoc Committee met on April 3.  Lawyer Scott  restated the Ad Hoc Committee demands and called on the CTV to  negotiate.  At this meeting, CTV finally realized the extent of the  anger of the Chinese over being labelled “foreigners” in “Campus  Giveaway,” and that inaccurate statistics were not the major issue.  On  April 15, the CTV and the Ad Hoc Committee agreed on a settlement  package.  The next day, CTV issued a public apology.  The network’s top  executive, Murray Chercover, said that “Campus Giveaway” was largely  based on extrapolations that distorted the actual statistics. . . the  majority of the research data was incorrect.  We were clearly wrong in  our presentation of the facts and W5’s initial defence of the program.” The program, Chercover continued, “was criticized by Chinese  Canadians and the universities as racist.  They were right. . . .”  He  confessed that “there is no doubt that the distorted statistics combined  with our visual presentation, made the program appear racist in tone  and effect.  We share the dismay of our critics that this occurred.  We  sincerely apologize for the fact Chinese Canadians were depicted as  foreigners, and for whatever distress this stereotyping may have caused  them in the context of our multicultural society.” Finally, Chercover said that “corrective measures have been taken.   We believe we have now instituted a better system of checks and balances  in respect to editorial control and presentation programs.”  Marge  Anthony, CTV’s public relations director, told reporters after the  apology that the person chiefly responsible for the “distortions” in the  segment “is no longer with us.” The anti-W5 movement did not disappear with CTV’s apology, but  evolved into the Chinese Canadian National Council for Equality, a  Toronto-based organization “to safeguard the dignity and equality of all  Chinese Canadians and other ethnic groups in this country.”

[b][b]CANADIANS CONDEMN RACIAL STEREOTYPING BY MACLEAN’S AND THE TORONTO STAR[/b][/b] [b][b][/b][/b] [b][b]TORONTO/VANCOUVER, Nov. 15, 2010 [/b][/b]– Canadians today strongly condemned editorial decisions at Maclean’s news magazine and the Toronto Star that use racial stereotyping to promote their publications, calling for public apologies and equal editorial space to counter harm done. “How can a headline, ‘Too Asian’?, not be racist? This is irresponsible journalism that relies on spreading racial stereotypes to sell magazines and newspapers,” says Avvy Go, clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic (MTSALC). “It pushes us back 30 years to the ‘W5 incident,’ when CTV portrayed Asian Canadians as ‘foreigners,’ taking away places at universities from white Canadians, and now we are being blamed for bringing up the academic standard to their disadvantage,” adds Go. “If this is not racism, then I don’t know what is.” “Thankfully, readers and viewers today are much more educated and recognize racial stereotyping when it occurs,” says Harbhajan Gill, president of the Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation in Vancouver. ”Not only do they recognize this as an insidious form of racism, they also are quick and determined in their condemnation of it.” The 20th anniversary edition of national news magazine Maclean’s university rankings, which hit newsstands Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010, carried an article that was headlined, ‘Too Asian’? This article creates and promotes a false perception that ethnic Asian students are limiting opportunities for non-Asians at certain Canadian universities and offers up a litany of stereotypes as proof. The Toronto Star’s main headline story on Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2010, made advance reference to the Maclean’s article, seemingly without any editorial consideration that they were also spreading the racist views contained within the Maclean’s article.“Rather than dealing with the true issues of meritocracy, the role of universities in screening for the rewards of professional careers, and whether higher education means more than just a higher income later in life, Maclean’s obscures any insights it might make with its racist profiling of ‘Asians’ and ‘whites,’” says Henry Yu, history professor at the University of British Columbia. “The title ‘Too Asian’? draws upon over a century of racist politics using the term ‘Asian’ to flatten everyone who looks ‘Oriental’ in the eyes of bigots into a single category, which is somehow threatening to ‘white’ Canadians.” Indeed, commentary on Maclean’s own website by its readers is more articulate and intelligent than the writers and editors themselves, and in many instances dismisses the article as being pointless and inflammatory.“Maclean’s and the Toronto Star need to issue public apologies for their treatment of Canadians,” says MTSALC’s Go. “These apologies should appear in their print and online editions as well as in other national and local media.” Community groups across Canada will also seek public consultations with both Maclean’s and the Toronto Star, as well as pursue remedies in the form of changes to policy at both media groups that result in preventing further racial stereotyping and racial profiling.  “‘Too Asian’? is a question asked-and-answered by Maclean’s in a story that seems to be deliberately contrived to create controversy,” says Neethan Shan, executive director of the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA) in Toronto. “However, the question itself is irrelevant, irrational and even discriminatory in today’s Canadian society, which strives to value diversity and promote multiculturalism.” “Making people into foreigners starts with the media,” comments Anthony B. Chan, professor of communications at University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa. “In 1979, CTV's W5 program portrayed Canadians of Chinese heritage as foreigners and the Canadian government said nothing about it,” Chan recalls. “In 2010, Maclean’s and the Toronto Star portray Canadians of Chinese ancestry as outsiders, as people who don't fit into the European culture, as non-drinkers, as foreigners, as aliens.” The so-called “W5 incident” in September 1979 gave rise to the Chinese Canadian National Council, which formed the following year. CTV wrongfully represented Chinese Canadians in an investigative story, titled “Campus Giveaway,” that claimed Asian students were eroding opportunities at getting a secondary education for “Canadian” students. Many of the students portrayed in the W5 program were naturalized citizens or born in Canada. “One of the first lessons I learned when I was working was how important it is to change the stereotypical thinking that newcomers have about who Canadians are,” says Winnie Cheung, former director of international student services at UBC. “After chipping away at these myths for the last two decades, there is now a better understanding, at least in a city like Vancouver, that someone who looks ‘foreign’ may be a fifth-generation Canadian.”

[b]Why [i]Maclean’s[/i] and Racism Should No Longer Define our Nation[/b] 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,” [i]Maclean’s[/i] 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 [i]Macleans’[/i] 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 [i]Maclean’s’[/i] 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 [i]Maclean’s[/i] 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 [i]Maclean’s[/i] 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. [i]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.[/i] Professor Henry Yu at UBC challenges Maclean's racial stereotyping in an article in its 2010 nUniversity Rankings edition.

[b]Jeet Heer: Maclean’s article on Asians familiar to anti-Semites of old[/b] National Post                  November 15, 2010 – 3:15 pm Throughout the 1920s, A. Lawrence Lowell, then president of Harvard  University, was worried that his beloved school was becoming too Jewish.  “The presence of Jews in large numbers tends to drive Gentiles  elsewhere,” Lowell wrote in a 1925 letter to Harvard professor. “To  prevent a dangerous increase in the proportion of Jews, I know at  present only one way which is at the same time straightforward and  effective, and that is a selection by a personal estimate of character  on the part of Admission authorities.” Lowell focused on the question of “character” because he believed  that Jewish students might well be intellectually gifted but they lacked  social graces. A Boston Brahmin and scion of a pedigreed WASP family,  Lowell thought that too many Jews spoiled the educational experience of  Harvard. Jews as a group, Lowell believed, didn’t assimilate easily into  the Anglo-Saxon majority, they tended to cluster together, they’re too  pushy and ambitious, they didn’t participate in sports and other  extracurricular activities, they lacked the easy comportment expected of  true Harvard men. Because Jews lacked “character” and threatened to  scare off well-heeled Gentile students, Lowell was at the forefront of a  movement among Ivy League universities to impose anti-Semitic quotas. It’s easy now to see what was wrong with Lowell’s thinking: it rested  on an implicit assumption of WASP privilege. For Lowell, Harvard was  without question an Anglo-Saxon stronghold, and minorities such as Jews  could only be admitted in such numbers that didn’t challenge the schools  social composition. WASPs were by definition the essence of Harvard and  Jews by definition were always aliens to be tolerated but only in small  numbers. In another 1925 letter Lowell actually described Jews as “an  alien race.”  If meritocracy, admitting students based on grades and  scholarly ability alone, meant too many Jews, then Lowell felt that  meritocracy had to go. Last week [i]Maclean[/i]’[i]s[/i] magazine published a  disgracefully xenophobic article which updated all of Lowell’s arguments  and assumptions, applying them not to the Harvard of the past but the  Canada of today. The target of the article wasn’t Jews but  Asian-Canadians. Written by Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Kohler, the  article was titled “’Too Asian’?” and opened with this startling  sub-headline “A term used in the U.S. to talk about racial imbalance at  Ivy League schools is now being whispered on Canadian campuses.” (All  quotes are from the original posting of the article, which was later  taken down by the magazine and reposted in an edited and slightly less  offensive form). Just as Lowell worried that the WASP elite would avoid a Harvard that  was too Jewish, Maclean’s raises the spectre that privileged white kids  are staying away from universities that are “too Asian”. The article  opens with the story of Alexandra and Rachel, two recent graduates of  Havergal College, a hoity-toity all girls private school. When choosing  upon their undergraduate education, both decided to avoid the University  of Toronto because it had a “reputation of being Asian.” What does “racial imbalance” and “too Asian” mean? [i]Maclean’s[/i] offers this helpful explication: “’Too Asian’ is not about racism, say  students like Alexandra: many white students simply believe that  competing with Asians – both Asian Canadians and international students –  requires a sacrifice of time and freedom they’re not willing to make.” The fist thing to note is the remarkably broad use of the term  “Asian” which encompasses everyone from a Hong Kong exchange student who  is here on a temporary visa to kids whose families have been in Canada  since the building of the railways in the era of John A. Macdonald. In  the eyes of [i]Maclean’s [/i]magazine, all “Asians” look the same and  are always (to use Lowell’s words) “an alien race” outside the  mainstream of Canadian society (which is implicitly defined as white).  The idea that white Canadians have a right to a university education  without having to compete with “Asians” rests on a strong sense of white  privilege and entitlement, a racial haughtiness which [i]Maclean’s[/i] largely takes for granted although the article briefly queries it in very mild terms. Much of the [i]Maclean’s[/i] article is taken up with listing the  faults of “Asian” students. The language the article uses would be  utterly familiar to Lowell and the other Ivy League gatekeepers of the  1920s. Like the Jews at Harvard in the 1920s, “Asians” are portrayed as  book smart but lacking in social skills. According to [i]Maclean’s[/i] “Asians” are pushy and ambitious (“They tend to be strivers, high  achievers and single-minded…”); unlike white students, “Asians” don’t  appeciate that education involves “social interaction, athletics and  self-actualization.” Because “Asians” have a “narrow” focus on  academics, they “risk alienating their more fun-loving [white] peers.”  Finally, “Asians” stick together and are balkanizing our culture by  their failure to assimilate. Even in very tiny details, [i]Maclean’s[/i] article echoes the  anti-Semites of old. Lowell took notice of the curious fact that Jewish  students were “much less addicted to intemperance” than Gentile  students. The [i]Maclean’s[/i] article repeatedly notes that “Asians” drink less than whites. [i]Maclean’s[/i] could have saved themselves money on this article if they had simply  reprinted one of Lowell’s speeches from the 1920s, replacing the word  “Jews” with “Asians”. Near the end of the article, [i]Maclean’s[/i] explicitly raises the  historical parallels, noting that “to quell the influx of Jewish  students, Ivy League schools abandoned their meritocratic admissions  processes in favour of one that focused on the details of an applicant’s  personal life.” We’re told that so far, Canadian schools have remained  meritocratic and “rely entirely on transcripts.” Then we get two curious  sentences: “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.” As a student of weaselly rhetoric, I  very much admire the use of the word “likely.” The suggestion being made  here is that a quota system, like the one that limited Jews in the Ivy  League schools, might possibly be a good idea, since the current system  leads to a bad result (the “a concentration of Asian students.”) I’ll end on a personal note. I’ve had the privilege of teaching at  Canadian universities and working for the Canadian media. I’ve never  experienced a “racial imbalance” at Canadian universities: I’ve met  students and colleagues from every conceivable ethnic background. But I  have noticed a “racial imbalance” in the Canadian media, which often  seems as white as the ideal Harvard Lowell was trying to create in the  1920s. In fact, arguably Lowell was progressive compared to the Canadian  media since he was willing to allow that the student body could be 15%  non-WASP. If the masthead of [i]Maclean’s[/i] magazine is to be trusted,  there is not a single “Asian” working in an editorial capacity for that  publication. There do seem to be one or two “South Asians,” like the  excellent Sarmishta Subramanian, but not any “Asians” as [i]Maclean’s [/i]defines  the term. To put it another way, students who don’t like to compete  with “Asians” would be perfectly comfortable working for [i]Maclean’s.[/i] National Post Read more:  [url=http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/15/jeet-heer-macleans-article-on-asians-familiar-to-anti-semites-of-old/#ixzz15OPMXCdK]http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/15/jeet-heer-macleans-article-on-asians-familiar-to-anti-semites-of-old/#ixzz15OPMXCdK[/url]

[b]关于Asian[/b] [b]by Steve Shi, Graduate Student at U of T[/b] [b][/b] 2010年11月14日 近日Maclean和Toronto  Star分别刊发了一些关于亚裔学生的言论,颇有意思.我看了Maclean的那篇,大概意思就是说亚洲学生只知道刻苦学习,不知道社交,所以成绩都很 好,都进了UT这样的顶级学校,以至于很多白人学生选大学的时候故意不选UT,而是QUEENS,WESTERN这类的party  school,另外一些学校也因为学生组成的问题故意限制亚洲学生….两篇文章大家都可以看一看,其实我相信不少人看了之后会觉得有的东西很可笑. 在我之前一篇有关思维模式的文章里提到的multiple contingency thinking VS. linea...r  categorical  thinking两个概念,在这个问题里面可以得到非常好的应用和展示.首先asian这个词语,就是一个category,而且是一个非常大,非常笼统 的category.Maclean的文章通篇都在讲asian,但是对这个词却没有明确的定义,而仅仅是把任何亚洲面孔的学生都定义为刻苦学习,不会社 交,被父母逼着进好学校为了找好工作的nerds.事实上大家都知道,asian也分很多类型,不管是国籍,还是来加拿大的时间,另外撇开asian这个 种族定义,每个亚裔学生作为人,也有性格,兴趣爱好,志向,社交圈子等等非常多的差异.而所有这些差异总结到一起,才能够决定一个个体的表现.亚洲学生也 有不爱学习的,乱来的,不求上进的,白人学生里面也有非常刻苦的,成绩很好的.亚洲学生里也有社交活跃,积极创造的,白人学生里面也有沉默寡言,天天在家 玩游戏的.我不明白为什么两家地位如此高的媒体能够将这个问题简化为一个asian vs. non-asian的问题,甚至还将asian  students和上世纪前半段大量涌入北美的犹太学生做比较. 这里值得批判的是这两家媒体解读这个问题的方式.很明显这是一种非常幼稚,非常不负责任的角度.用一个种族归类概括和解释所有的问题,不是一个有理 性的人应该做的,也更不符合一个国家的最顶尖媒体的形象.关于亚洲学生本身是否太过于刻苦,不会社交,是否占据太多大学的入学机会,是否让白人学生不敢来 UT等等问题,我想不是这么容易就可以解答的.就亚裔学生在加拿大大学比例上升这个问题来讲,加拿大政府对于技术移民的苛刻要求造成了亚裔移民受教育程度 的普遍提高,因而其子女的入学率也普遍高于其他族裔.加拿大众多学校对于学生选择的机制更偏向于成绩,因此进入大学的学生更依赖于学业上的表现而忽视课外 活动,自然也就让大学里面有更多的nerds.亚裔学生的家庭普遍偏重教育,并且对子女有高期望,因而使得更多的亚裔学生选择申报大学.加拿大整体就业环 境对于华裔不友善,因此更多的华裔子女只能通过获取更高的学位来提升劳务市场的竞争力…..所有这些因素都在影响着亚裔学生人口比例的问题,也就是我所说 的multiple  contingencies.所以显然要理解和讨论华裔学生的问题,光是通过种族分类是绝对无法准确客观公正的,而且引发种族关系紧张的可能性大大提高. 事实上,这两篇文章出来之后,许多华人社区和组织已经开始了一些讨论和回应,另外UT也会有相关的会议和交流活动.大家有兴趣可以参与.我想说的是 在面对这样一些问题的过程中,我们非常需要注意将自己的思维打开一些,不要局限于将一两个的单独的,局限的因素与结论联系起来,而是考虑问题背后的诸多关 联因子,综合的做出判断.

[b]中国人，你为什么不生气？！ [/b] [b][/b] 这 几天多伦多星报和麦考林杂志对于华裔学生和父母以及其他亚洲移民 家庭的诽谤和丑化在华人社区的部分人群中产生强烈反响。不少人尖锐地指出：种族主义以“犹 抱琵琶半遮面”的形式又一次在公共媒体上亮相。于是，作为被丑化和歧视的华人群体中，有一部分人说：我们要团结起来，我们要行动起来，让公众和媒体都知 道：我们被所谓的主流媒体歧视了！与此同时，同样作为被丑化和歧视的华人群体中，有另外一些人说：没什么大不了的，别老拿种族说事！感觉上，这后一种声音 好像还要大声些。这让我不禁要问： 中国人移民加拿大，难道就是为了做三等公民？ 难道加拿大的华人不仅自己做了三等公民，还希望自己的孩子、孙子也做三等公民？ 如果对于这两个问题的回答是肯定的，那么，我才能够理解为什么华...人中居然有这么多人能够在加拿大做“模范移民”且自得其乐。只是，希望自己孩子、孙子在加拿大做三等公民这样的愿望还是有点太变态了吧？！ 如果对以上两个问题的回答是否定的，那么，我无法理解一个华人既不愿意做三等公民，却在被歧视的时候不敢或不愿意表达自己的反对意见，甚至于在情绪上连生气都不敢？！ 种族主义是北美社会的一个主要社会矛盾，从前如此，现在依然如此。 对于这样一个现实，北美华人的主流，或者说，绝大部分北美华人，不论是移民过来的，还是土生土长的，一直使用逃避的心理机制来应对。典型的就是否认种族主义存在的现实，否认自己以及自己同胞被歧视的现实。 稍微了解一点华人移民历史的人都知道：华人到北美一百多年的历史就是华人遭受北美社会种族歧视的历史。一百多年过去了，历史有没有进步？有，自二十世纪末 以来，种族主义从公开的、显性的歧视行为转变为私下的、隐性的。政治上的正确性原则被主流社会普遍接受，其结果是反种族主义变得更加困难。于是，在加拿大 的华裔社区，像平权会这样的组织越来越式微，越来越无足轻重。更为严重的是，新一代的华人移民既缺乏政治上的敏感性，又对北美主流价值体系的盲目崇拜。其 结果：今天的华人社区较之几十年前的还不如，在政治上非常的不成熟（看看多伦多市最近一次的市长选举就知道了！），即使是被歧视了，还不知道自己被歧视 （或者是不愿意承认自己被歧视），还以为自己做个“模范少数民族”（=被压迫的顺民）就可以免于被压迫被歧视！ 华人移民在北美社会对种族歧视和压迫采用的精神胜利法和鲁迅笔下的阿Q一脉相传，我说过：贱民移民到北美，还是贱民。阿Q留洋了，依然是阿Q。 阿Q当然是活该被欺压，被砍头。如果阿Q的子孙不能学会斗争，他们也活该被欺压，被砍头。 我不是预言家，我不知道反种族主义何时能够胜利，但是有一点我深信不移： 作为三等公民的我们这些加拿大华人，今天如果不能直面种族主义的现实，一百年后，我们的子孙后代依然要被歧视被压迫，依然是三等公民。

[size=4][b]Support letter from W5 veteran:[/b][/size] Hi Stan, I am -----, a Lao Wah Kiu from Hong Kong who was involved in the original W5  battle back in 79/80. Back then we were fighting for our kids' future  in Canada, now, 31 years later, we have to fight for our grandkids  too??! Is it ever gonna end??! All these "lack of interactions" comments in the Star/ Maclean are just smokescreens. As long as Canada brings in immigrants and foreign students (so the gov't can benefit from the fat $$school fees that they pay) and TO being the hub for immigrants, you'll always hear many languages everywhere: school, work, play...so what?! Isn't that what Multiculturalism is all abt.?     [b]If you like, you can [/b][b][i]cut and paste  [/i]my concerns (anonymously) to Mandarin-speaking folks (perhaps Google Translate if you wish...).[/b] ----- The Star and Maclean have teamed up this time to mislead the public and to incite hatred. First of all,[i] [b]the Star reporter was given the inside track of the Maclean story (!!![/b]-)[/i]-and then she shrewdly twisted a well-meaning Chinese Can. holistic education forum story to make it sounded like Chinese vs Chinese, to give false-legitimacy to her own headlined, front page Star article. Thus by  raising profile of the upcoming Maclean story, Star was able to boost readerships (and ad revenues) for both  publications, and most importantly, both articles have created so much  controversies on the Net and all the rippled effects that they have  certainly succeeded in their goal of making sure that so-called  mainstream (White) Canadians from coast to coast, are aware of all those "Asian Foreigners" stealing their/ their kids' school spots. It is a ploy to gain popular support in non-Asian Canadians communities who could then  pressure their MPs/ MPPs in advocating for drastic changes to the U admission policies in Canada in  the near future:     Maclean headline changed to:  " [b]Worries that efforts in the U.S. to limit enrollment of Asian students in top universities may migrate to Canada"[/b]    Their true purposes came out:  [b]"The impact of high admissions rates for Asian students has been an issue for years in the U.S., where high school guidance counsellors have come to accept that it’s just more difficult to sell their Asian applicants to elite colleges.[/b].."     "[b]And U.S. studies suggest Ivy League schools have taken the issue of Asian academic prowess so seriously that they’ve operated with secret quotas for decades to maintain their WASP credentials[/b]."     [b]"(US) Schools also began looking at such intangibles as character, personality and leadership potential. 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."[/b] In the US, some people are questioning how come that the Asian-American pop'n, being only 4 % in the US, yet constitutes some 15-20% in the Ivies? (This is after Asian-Americans' # of spots have been cut in half already...) So, since there are NO high # of URMs (Blacks and Latinos) here in the Great White North as opposed to the States, will the [i]public[/i] [i]universities[/i]  here then use [b][i]QUOTAS[/i][/b]  to make sure that 80 to 90% of U spaces will go to our unique Can. version of "Affirmative Action' for our "URMs" (Under Represented [b][i]MAJORITIES[/i][/b])?? Well, of course, our U then will longer be "Too Asian" and everything will be [i]so fair[/i] !!!  :S

[size=4][b][url=http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_174514912559573&view=doc&id=174644635879934]明报：Maclean偷偷改版。[/url][/b][/size] [b][url=http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20101112/taa2.htm]http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20101112/taa2.htm[/url][/b] [b] [/b] [b]帶種族主義色彩言論仍在 《麥克琳》新版文章上網黃煜文斥換湯不換藥[/b] 平權會前天下午開記者會公開譴責《麥克琳》雜誌和《多倫多星報》的報道之後﹐《麥克琳》雜誌網站前晚約9時曾一度收回該篇文章﹐至昨晨再放回其網站。 新版經過改頭換面﹐將原本的「有些人不想到『亞洲人』大學攻讀」的標題﹐轉為「擔心美國頂級大學限制亞裔學生行動會降臨加國」﹔同時前天文章內受訪中學輔導員指亞裔學生「只會爭取98高分成績﹐其他甚麼都不懂」的言論﹐整段被抽走。 全加平權會總幹事黃煜文向本報作出回應稱﹐《麥克琳》的新版文章「換湯不換藥」﹐大標題仍是大學「太亞洲化」﹐受訪者帶種族主義色彩的言論仍在。 他說﹕「《麥克琳》以為新...版標題可將責任歸咎於美國﹐因『太亞洲化』的形容詞是原自美國的﹗」 他續稱﹐《麥克琳》雜誌的編輯和記者似乎都願意約時間與他討論上述問題﹐但由於昨天是國殤日﹐大家仍未約好時間。 與此同時﹐《多倫多星報》昨天也刊登報道﹐標題﹕「平權會譴責《多倫多星報》和《麥克琳》雜誌──有關東亞裔學生湧往大學的報道被指『製造恐慌』」﹐而該報道也是來自該備受爭議文章的同1名記者。 昨天的報道引述平權會多倫多分會總幹事麥達寧於前天記者會中的發言﹐指上述2篇文章令人感到亞裔人與白人對敵﹐是兩種完全不同的人。他又指摘文章將亞裔學生形容為讀書機器﹐不參加社交活動。 報道又引述剛於約克大學畢業的華人學生盧恆軒對文章的反應﹐他指該類文章「製造道德惶恐﹐將議題過度簡單化」。 他說﹕「報道指只有亞裔移民家長注重讀大學﹐實在甚不公平。」 《星報》昨天的報道指全加平權會總幹事黃煜文指責說﹕「我可以找到白人家長強迫子女讀大學。加拿大人不斷勸告子女不要吸煙﹑不要吸毒﹑不要輟學﹐鼓勵他們上大學。那麼有何不妥﹖」 黃煜文昨天接受本報訪問時作出回應稱﹐他對《多倫多星報》昨天刊登「跟進報道」表示歡迎﹐但仍希望該報編輯與他討論該報先前的報道。

loser's magazine, never picked up in Doctor's office while waiting. They trying to make it like <TIME>, but ...compare to time, this is about nothing there... better read something like food guide...

我不在乎。我们中国（甚至是亚洲人）比这里更歧视人，不管是种族，还有地位。

[quote]引用第10楼yw1015于2010-11-15 21:09发表的  : loser's magazine, never picked up in Doctor's office while waiting. They trying to make it like <TIME>, but ...compare to time, this is about nothing there... better read something like food guide... [url=/club/job.php?action=topost&tid=266611&pid=6150560][img]p_w_picpath/back.gif[/img][/url] [/quote] I read BC Health Guide....

[url=http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_174514912559573&view=doc&id=175443635800034][b]DiverCity "Too Asian?" too racist for a magazine like Maclean's? [/b][/url] Zi-Ann Lum Posted: Nov 11th, 2010 [url=http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/divercity/2010/11/11/too-asian-too-racist-magazine-macleans]http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/divercity/2010/11/11/too-asian-too-racist-magazine-macleans[/url] Whatever intention Maclean's had in publishing "Too Asian?"[b][b] [/b][/b]by  Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Kohler, the story in the November 10  issue jeopardizes the magazine's reputation of producing "strong  investigative ...reporting" by publishing careless writing that tries to  pass off inaccurate stereotypes as "facts." Findlay and Kohler might as  well cite Gilmore Girls' Lane Kim and Harold & Kumar's Harold Lee while they try to stimulate a dilemma by transplanting a hot American debate into a Canadian context: "The dilemma is this: Canadian institutions operate as pure meritocracies  when it comes to admissions, and admirably so. Privately, however, many  in the education community worry that universities risk becoming too  skewed one way, changing campus life – a debate that's been more or less  out in the open in the U.S. for years but remains muted here." At  the end of the article, I was still uncertain about what the dilemma is  in Canada. That the writers think Canadian universities operate as  "pure meritocracies" is admirable. If both U of T President David Naylor  and UBC President Stephen Toope are not concerned about the percentage  of Asian students at their universities, why should Maclean's readers  be? So, what's the problem? The problem is that Maclean's  is trying to spin a non-issue into a debate about race for the sake of  selling a extra few issues and luring extra clicks to keep their online  traffic up. It's reckless from a journalistic standpoint to  publish an article that overgeneralizes and typecasts an entire race of  people. This kind of writing belongs in a tabloid, not in a magazine  that touts its highly acclaimed journalistic reputation. Publications should be wary of green-lighting articles that may have negative social repercussions by reinforcing stereotypes: "'Too Asian" is not about racism, say students like Alexandra:  many white students simply believe that competing with Asians – both  Asian Canadians and international students – requires a sacrifice of  time and freedom they're not willing to make." "Too Asian" is, in  fact, about racism. It's about taking Asian-Canadians and Asian  international students at face-value and grouping them under the same  umbrella, then stereotyping them as shut-ins and academic robots.  Because Findlay and Kohler fail to address the cultural distinctions  between Asian Canadians and Asian international students, they fail to acknowledge a large majority of Asian Canadians who are incredibly involved and by no means lack social skills. They  also fail to explore the make-up of domestic Asian students and  international Asian students at each referenced university. Instead,  they carelessly draw a big circle around all these diverse groups and  label them "Asian" for simplicity's sake. A first-generation  Canadian, I was raised in Toronto and attended high school in the middle  of the city at Yonge and Eglinton. My friends were a mixture of  Chinese, Koreans, Serbians, Latvians, Dutch, Jews, Italians, Persian,  English, and Irish. We were involved with school clubs and after school  we socialized together. As each of us moved on to university, we  each continued to make new friends of all races and creeds and continued  to be involved in extracurricular activities on and off campus. The reason why my Asian friends and I got into university cannot be accounted for by "fact(s) born out by hard data" (whatever that means) or by our tendency to be "strivers, high-achievers and single-minded in (our) approach to university." I  succeed because I choose to surround myself with a group of motivated  individuals, based on character, not race, who motivate me with their  own strong work ethic and enthusiasm  to continue to  achieve on and off-campus. I earned my spot in university based on  academic merit. The fact that I am Asian should be irrelevant. For  every five metaphorical steps any Asian takes forward to defy popular  Asian stereotypes it seems that some new ceiling appears right after the  previous had a chance to be broken. A magazine of Maclean's' reputation  and reach should help lead initiatives that nurture intercultural  dialogue instead of publishing articles based on lazy journalism.

See how we reacted effectively against "Campus Giveaway" [url=http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=w5+campus+giveaway&aq=f]http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=w5+campus+giveaway&aq=f[/url] [b][/b][b][url=http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=w5+campus+giveaway&aq=f]YouTube         - w5 campus giveaway[/url][/b][b][/b] [url=http://www.youtube.com/]www.youtube.com[/url]

[b][/b][b][url=http://jezebel.com/5687559/yes-calling-a-school-too-asian-is-racist]Yes, Calling A School "Too Asian" Is Racist[/url][/b][b] [/b]jezebel.com [align=left][color=#000000][backcolor=transparent;] Are Canadian universities "[url=http://jezebel.com/tag/tooasian/]too Asian[/url]?" That's the question posed in a bizarre article that also swears "'too Asian' isn't about racism." So what's it about then?         Stephanie Findlay and Nicholas Kohler of Macleans don't come out and [url=http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/11/10/too-asian/]say[/url] that Canadian colleges have too many [url=http://jezebel.com/tag/asianstudents/]Asian students[/url]. They let a group of anonymous white kids do that: Read more:  [url=http://jezebel.com/5687559/yes-calling-a-school-too-asian-is-racist#ixzz15VFNeApu]http://jezebel.com/5687559/yes-calling-a-school-too-asian-is-racist#ixzz15VFNeApu[/url][/backcolor][/color][/align][align=left] [/align][align=left] [/align][align=left] [/align][align=left][color=#000000][backcolor=transparent][blockquote][A]s Alexandra puts it — she asked that her real name not be used in this article, and broached the topic of race at universities hesitantly — a "reputation of being Asian." Discussing the role that race plays in the self-selecting communities that more and more characterize university campuses makes many people uncomfortable. Still, an "Asian" school has come to mean one that is so academically focused that some students feel they can no longer compete or have fun. Indeed, Rachel, Alexandra and her brother belong to a growing cohort of student that's eschewing some big-name schools over perceptions that they're "too Asian." [/blockquote]Lest you think these kids are racist or something, Findlay and Kohler helpfully explain that, "'too Asian' is not about racism, say students like Alexandra: many white students simply believe that competing with Asians — both Asian Canadians and international students — requires a sacrifice of time and freedom they're not willing to make." From there, the piece — which was briefly removed from Maclean's website but is now back up (albeit in edited form; you can read the original [url=http://pastebin.ca/1987790]here[/url]) — becomes a weird mashup of stereotypes and concern-trolling. Asian students "work harder" and "tend to be strivers, high achievers and single-minded in their approach to university." They have pushy parents, are anti-social, and when they do socialize they do so with — horrors — other Asians. Universities need to do something about this terrible problem before they become "places of many solitudes, deserts of non-communication." It's kind of unclear what this even means, but Findlay and Kohler go on to say that the real problem isn't that colleges are "too Asian" but that they're too segregated — they're "at risk of being increasingly fractured along ethnic lines." Of course, blaming racial segregation on the idea that immigrant groups "keep to themselves" is an age-old way of dodging the real discrimination these groups face — but okay, having friends of all different backgrounds is an important part of becoming a thoughtful and sociopolitically aware person, and it's reasonable for colleges to do what they can to foster such friendships. But if that's what Findlay and Kohler cared about, why didn't they call their article "Too Segregated?" Why didn't they talk about all groups, including white students, rather than focusing in on (a stereotyped and oversimplified version of) Asian students? Why did they base a whole thesis of anti-Asian resentment on a few quotes by white kids who wouldn't go on the record? Whatever the reason, "students like Alexandra" are here to assure you that it's [i]not[/i] about racism. [url=http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/11/10/too-asian/]‘Too Asian'?[/url] [Macleans] Image via Matthew Benoit/Shutterstock.com [/backcolor][/color][/align] [align=left][color=#000000][backcolor=transparent;] [/backcolor][/color][/align] [b] [/b]

[u][/u] spot416    :"Post-high school pathways of immigrant youth,...found that more than 70 per cent of students in the Toronto District School Board who immigrated from East Asia went on to university, compared to 52 per cent of Europeans, the next highest group, and 12 per cent of Caribbean, the lowest. " This seems to be directly correlated to crime statistics too. Is this such a bad thing that Asian parents are expecting their children strive for the best? John Brown  :The entire premise of the article is just to stir racial prejudice. The Media, routinely complains about how minority communities, need more help, are involved in gangs, violence and fail to assimilate. Now the asian groups assimilate quite well and outperform white Canadian students, and so Macleans runs to their rescue and focuses on them? This is ridiculous, if they want to work hard, make money, pay their taxes, let them! Who are we to stop them for doing so? My God! What have we come to? Are we afraid of immigrants adopting our values and working hard. Mary : So what, this is nothing new! I graduated from Waterloo 18 years ago with a B.Math Honours, Computer Science (Co-op). I'm not Chinese, but most of my friends were, in fact a friend who wasn't, remarked after a couple of weeks when I introduced her to someone, that she was the first of my friends she met who wasn't Chinese - it was not said as a bad thing, just an observation lol. My aunt also remarked that the picture of my CS graduating class was 3/4 Chinese. Who cares. What I did care about though, was that we had a lot of TAs who spoke little to no English and were useless for help, yet us as undergrads and having English as a first language, had to get 60% on the English Language Proficiency Exam (ELPE). If you're going to TA a class, you should be able to understood and answer questions in English and not just written English as some TAs, but in person. I can count on ONE hand the number of times a TA actually helped me or my friends.

AER_Eng: As a Caucasian grad student in engineering at U of T I say Big F@#king deal. Every one of those students worked extremely hard to get where they are, largely because their parents valued the OPPORTUNITY Canada gave them. University is not a right, you have to work for it. "White" people usually come from families who have lived in Canada for generations and maybe don't realize how lucky we are compared to the rest of the world. The "they took my job" complaint essentially means "I was lazy and decided to play video games and party, but I REALLY wanna go". Don't we all remember something about ants and grasshoppers..... Jope: Isn't this just racism? I'm Asian, and I was born in Canada. Hence, I am Canadian. White people are only Canadian because they were born here too. Do these white people have some sort of special right because they came here a couple generations before me? Or how do we compare to Europeans who came more recently? Does our hard work mean less or is insignificant because of our skin? Ridiculous. If your son can't compete against me, then so be it. This is a meritocracy, the reason why Canada is such a great nation is because the talented and hardworking move up the ladder, and the untalented don't get to make decisions they are not ready for. If you can't compete, move out of the way, if you want to get something I want, work fair and square for it. Stop complaining, let the better man be the victor. oatmealboy6  : [/i]This article is going to stir a truckload of controversy, but as a Chinese-Canadian myself, I don't think it's that bad and raises some interesting issues. But a few problems I have with it: -The article begins with what is essentially anonymous sources. Come on, MacLeans, you know better than that. -The authors have a very subjective narrative, which is fine, but do not take the opportunity to call out clear cases of racism and igorance, and appear a little to willing to let such things slide. -There is a missed opportunity here to explore what the real issue is for a lot of universities: their dogged pursuit of international students, to the possible detriment of Canadian students of any race. Please, someone ask Stephen Toope why in UBC's MBA program Canadian students, again of any race, are the minority compared to international students. They have even fewer Canadian students, of any race, compared to international students from Asia alone. How's that working out for them?

Eddie: I'm a Chinese-Canadian, and some parts of this article is right, and whether we like it or not, we can all most definitely identify which schools are more "Asians" than others. Most of the reasons why is that our culture tends to stick together, it's easier to be friends with someone if they know what background they're coming from. You're more likely to be friends where both of you like horses, soccer, and How I Met Your Mother. Now switch that with badminton, computer games, and Bubble Tea (which, in fact, most of my "White" friends love, and I love them all for taking up the courage to try it!) It's just how it is, there is a segregation, and unless some we all try to experiment in others culture, we'll stay like this. I have no problems with being identified as "Asian" (prefer Chinese thank you, as one of the previous poster pointed out, Asia is a continent, not the country that I was born from). But when you straight up assume I like mah-jong or I'm super great at DDR, I'm then insulted. Give us a chance, and I also ask that some of us Chinese group to go and try something new when you're not too busy with your work. Go out to a pub, Talk to some other people, be friendly, and just enjoy yourself. We're sometimes a little too comfy in our niche, go out and mix it a bit, and it's gonna take both "sides"s help if we're gonna mix it up =) Estelle  : [/i]So, let me get this straight. Students, particularly Asians, who study HARD and don't touch alcohol on campus, are the cause of segregation problems on campus. I see. Since too many Asians are in these 'Asian' universities, a change should be made to the merit-based admission procedures, even though the university will evaluate the students' afterward undergraduate performance entirely on a merit basis. Makes total sense. "Some students feel they can no longer compete or have fun". The competition is unfair in these 'Asian' universities because the non-Asians feel they cannot compete...So the Asians are making the competition unfair by being smart. Very logical. "Some students feel they can no longer compete or have fun". It is also unfair because these non-Asian students cannot 'have fun' during their four years of $25,000+ worth of education. Sad isn't it. Merit-based applications are not fair enough, because doctors are humans too, they should be allowed to make mistakes. Right? Discrimination in the workforce isn't enough, they gotta start BEFORE you get into the workforce. Great. PatChan:Having been a student at U of T in mechanical engineering, I have witnessed what this article says first-hand. Memorizing a book and getting good grades doesn't necessarily mean that you are able to apply certain concepts in the real world. Many students do this (not only asians), and I've witnessed the problems that come with it when they either go into the workplace, the lab, or when they have to complete a project that involves translating concepts into real-life problem solving. All races have this issue, but I think that the article rings true when it comes to east-asians ostricizing and isolating themselves from the rest of the student body. Many don't know how to deal with people. Not ALL of them, but many of them. This is coming from someone who has witnessed it first-hand.

Dylan:[/i]This article is garbage. White Canadian students do not think like this. Besides the obvious racist undertone of the entire article, the most annoying thing to me is the way it represents "white Canadians" First of all, on a side note, referring to a demographic of people as White (who could be from Eastern Europe or South Africa, etc.) is no more right than referring to one as Asian (who could be from China, Kazakhstan, or Kuwait. However, I'm assuming that the article generalizes Asian to mean people from the Eastern part of the continent. Anyway, the racist and lazy attitudes presented in the article are representative of only one demographic of people in Canada: the upper middle class to rich kids. It's not a secret that the wealthier kids prefer to go to Queen's, McGill, and Western because of their predominantly white populations, and good reputations without a huge workload. There is a reason why certain other highly reputable schools were not mentioned in the article even though their "Asian populations" aren't particularly high. The reason is that they're not safehouses for lazy rich kids who are going to ride their parents wealth through life. Layla18:I am a grade 12 student currently applying to universities. I was originally considering going to Waterloo University but was advised not to do so because it was "full of Asians", and also that the courses and workload at UW was extremely tough. I 100% agree that it is morally unjustifiable for a university to accept people based on their race. Universities should be handing out acceptance letters based on marks alone. However, i will admit that as female of Finnish descent, i do want to go to a University that is a little bit easier and "whiter" than institutions such as UofT and UW. I think that it speaks more about Canadian Culture and less about "Asian Culture" that the students we are raising today are not giving 100% to their studies. With that being said, is the fact that we may be underachieving compared to our "Asian" counterparts a bad thing?? Although you attend University for the schooling, there are many other factors that affect where someone goes to University. Having a social life is also extremely important, not to mention having school spirit adds to the university experience as a whole. Is there a link between the number of "Asians" in a University and the amount of school spirit that a University has? There seems to be. Call me racist for wanting to go to a "white" University, but the fact is I am being honest. I have best friends who are of Korean descent and African descent, yet I think that if I went to a University with student that were mainly of Asian descent that I would not feel as comfortable. A friend studding at University of Waterloo for their second year of their undergrad told me stories about being discriminated against because of being white. In fact, I know many people leave these institutions after their first years in order to go to "whiter" institutions. If a University chooses people based on their ethnicity in an effort to maintain their institution, I can understand why a University would choose to do so.

really?: It's possible to get 98% and still have a social life. I know several friends--of different backgrounds btw--who work hard and party hard. Students who succeed in university are those who know how to balance. Not to mention "social life" is a very relative term -- some people may attribute 'social life' as being highly extroverted, yet some people have a different definition of social life (ie. some are quite happy with spending time with a couple of close friends in low key settings). Also, this article makes is sound like asians study all the time in their rooms--you do realize some of them with high marks also do a bunch of extracurriculars--sports, music, dance...ie. these students aren't just studious, but are also well-rounded, which make them the type of candidates university want to attract. In fact, many students who fit this category of good candidates are of various backgrounds. As for the focus on pre-university-admission: highschool education is not intellectually challenging-- you an get away with cramming and still get a decent mark. In university, it's generally those with good work ethic who do well--in fact, having TA-ed first year lab before, I would say the mark distribution is not race-dependent--you get high-achieving "Caucasians" and "Asians", as well as low achieving Caucasian and Asian students...once you get into university, it's really a whole other story. And the whole "my spot in university wuz robbed by immigrants" -- um okay, how about we talk about the many qualified immigrants who have to work minimum wage jobs? Institutional racism at its finest, stuff I learned in sociology is applicable, omg! tl;dr group: this article is full of baseless assumptions and stereotypes. How is anyone going to take the McClean's rankings seriously it publishes bullcrap articles like this?