WHY DIDN’T ASIANS VOTE FOR ROMNEY?

85 comments

Posted on 10th November 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

Asians have the highest household income, highest education levels and the highest married family rate in America. They should have been a lock for the Republicans. Why did they vote overwhelmingly for Obama?

In the Aftermath of ‘12

By: Neil Howe

On November 7, Americans were just beginning to assess the magnitude and meaning of President Obama’s ’12 victory when the Dow dropped over 300 points, its largest daily plunge of the year. The next day, November 8, it plunged again. It’s almost as if history doesn’t want to give us time to contemplate what happened. But now, at the risk ignoring the rush of events, let’s take a moment to put some closure on the election season.

Overall, as my readers know, the ‘12 results were pretty much what I anticipated.

I said the election would be a lot closer than in ‘08, but that Obama would win. The margin would be narrow, but the outcome would not be an all-night cliffhanger. That turned out to be about right. In ’08, Obama won by 7.3 percent of the popular vote, just about the median margin for all elections in U.S. history. (It was just shy of FDR’s margin over Thomas Dewey in 1944.)  In ’12, Obama won by only 2.3 percent of the popular vote, which is the fifth smallest since 1900. (It was just under George W. Bush’s 2.5 percent margin against John Kerry, an election that was also considered a squeaker.)

I said there would be a 15-to-25 percentage point gap between under-30 young vote for Obama and the 65+ senior vote for Obama. In ’08, the gap was 21 percent; and in ’12, a preliminary survey by Pew projected it would be 20 percent. In fact, according to exit polls, the ‘12 gap between young and old was 16 points. So age polarization did moderate slightly. From ’08 to ’12, all age groups voted about 3 percent more for Romney. But Millennials tipped somewhat more steeply to Romney (about 5 percent) and the Silent a bit less. Let me go back to the postwar history of the presidential “generation gap” and update the Pew chart here. My edits in red show the actual ’12 exit poll results.

Why the moderation—or shrinkage—of the Obama youth margin from ‘08? Pre-election surveys identifying this youth shift away from Obama found that it was generated mostly by young whites (especially non-college young whites who have been hit hardest by the post-2008 economy) and only to a lesser extent by young minorities. The CIRCLE crosstabs on the exit poll, shown below, confirm that this is indeed what happened. Note that this time, unlike in ’08, the majority of young whites (51 percent) voted for the GOP.

This should not be a surprise. Unlike McCain, who struck many Millennials in ’08 as simply “too old,” Romney came across as more youthful and did not present the same obvious age contrast with Obama. Also, as I have mentioned in previous posts, Millennials are attracted to Romney’s cool, analytical, consensus-seeking persona—just as they have been attracted to many of these same qualities in Obama. The huge positive shift to Romney among under-50 whites after the first debate was largely attributed to the popular discovery that Romney was not an eccentric hothead like McCain or committed culture warrior like Rick Perry. This discovery brought Romney back into the race and hugely complicated Team Obama’s campaign strategy. Ultimately, however, it was not enough to put Romney over the top.

Although I’ve reported on several surveys pointing to declining youth enthusiasm for the election, I’ve also insisted that the Millennial Generation is destined to be a civic force to be reckoned with. My entire generational model points in that direction. True to my model, Millennials pulled through—surprising many who had predicted they would stay home. In fact, according to the latest CIRCLE estimates, the ‘12 youth voter participation rate (at least 49 percent, the count is not over yet) was nearly as strong as it was in ’08 (52 percent). This rate is already higher than ’04 (48 percent) and much higher than in the last election in which Gen-Xers totally filled the under-30 age bracket (1996: 37 percent).

In ’12 as in ’08, the youth vote determined the outcome—meaning that if the under-30 vote had simply split 50-50, McCain and Romney would have won. This cannot be said of any election earlier than 2008, going all the way back to the 1930s. The youth vote likewise determined the outcome of all the major battleground states that went this time to Obama: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Many who expected a GOP victory clearly hoped that a lot fewer youth voters would show up at the polls this year. This did not happen. Or, if it did happen to some degree, declining excitement probably kept home precisely those young voter categories (noncollege white males) who would have been least likely to vote for Obama. Either way, no advantage for Team Romney.

More generally, the ’12 results showed that the Democrats were mostly right, and the Republicans mostly wrong, about the composition of the turnout. The GOP-ridiculed “D+6” model turned out to be dead on. Also, futures markets like Intrade once again demonstrated their uncanny ability to hone in on the most likely outcome, even when real-time voter surveys were jumping all around. Conservatives who normally praise the virtues of markets should have known this all along.

Let me turn to two further perspectives on the results—income and ethnicity. Each sheds some interesting light on where Romney went wrong and why he fell short.

First, income. As discussed in a previous post, a major Pew survey recently revealed that the significant overall voter shift away from Democratic (and toward Republican) party identification over the last four years has been generated entirely by lower- and middle-income voters. Reason: They have been hardest hit by the economy. Affluent voters, by contrast, actually lean more to Obama and the Democrats in 2012 than in 2008. For Romney to win, it was absolutely essential for him to exploit this opening and harness this disaffection. He had to persuade these voters that the Obama economy had failed them and had stripped them of their security, dignity, and independence. And he had to make his biggest gains (relative to ’08) among lower income brackets.

In this effort he failed. The GOP preference by income bracket in ’12 was even steeper (slightly) than in ’08. Among > $100K voters, Romney won 54 percent; among < $50K voters, he won 38 percent. Compared to McCain in ’08, Romney did better over $100K and worse under $50K. To be sure, Romney faced some unique challenges in appealing to lower-income America—starting with his image as a very wealthy Wall Street wheeler-dealer. But these were surmountable. (Obama too is regularly criticized as an elitist Ivy League legal theorist, yet over time he has learned to handle the issue deftly.) What killed Romney was not the image, but rather the substance he regularly delivered that perfectly matched the image. Notorious example: the surreptitiously taped “47 percent” monologue, which was exactly the wrong message and which remained attached to Romney until the end of the campaign. The remark did untold damage. At long last, Jimmy Carter’s humiliating 1980 loss to the GOP was avenged by his grandson!

Second, ethnicity. And here I’m not sure I have the answers. Romney was the decisive favorite of all white Americans (59 percent).  He was even the decisive favorite of all white American women (56 percent). Yet Romney was also distinctly unpopular among nonwhites: He got the vote of only 27 percent of Hispanics, 26 percent of Asians, and 6 percent of African-Americans. Despite his better overall showing compared to McCain in ‘08, Romney actually lost 4 points among Hispanics and (incredibly) 11 points among Asians.

What’s going on here? Of course, everyone points to John McCain’s and George W. Bush’s conciliatory stance on immigration reform as one reason they didn’t suffer as badly at the hands of minority voters. Maybe. But I don’t think that’s a complete explanation. Romney and Obama actually agree on most of the basics of immigration reform—and though minority immigrants widely approve of Obama’s Dream Act and selective enforcement policy, they also know about his relentless deportation agenda. (Obama has deported more immigrants than any other President.)

I think something deeper, more cultural is at work. An 11 percent decline among Asians? That’s a catastrophe for the GOP. Asians are not known to obsess over immigration reform. They exceed whites in median household income. They are socially conservative, aspire to own property, and admire successful business leaders. In recent elections, I haven’t found one in which they didn’t give the GOP at least 40 percent of their vote.  In 1996, when Dole lost badly to Clinton, Asians actually preferred Dole to Clinton, 48 to 43 percent. So what happened in 2012?

Perhaps this is where Romney’s Mormonism ultimately hurt him—not, as once expected, among white evangelicals (who ended up ignoring theology and voting for him anyway), but among nonwhite minorities (who could not look past the long LDS heritage as a white-only church). Again, I am simply suggesting possibilities. I welcome your suggestions.

We can make two fairly certain predictions for how Romney’s defeat is going to play out for the future of the GOP and for the Republican candidates likely to be running in 2016. One prediction is generational. Romney is likely to be the last Boomer to run as the GOP Presidential candidate. After all, by nearly everyone’s post-mortem consensus, he was the ablest Boomer contender in ’12 and still he lost. In 2016, by contrast, a huge new influx of first-wave Gen-Xers will be flooding onto the GOP primary stage. They are smart, charismatic, and (mostly) have plenty of hands-on executive experience. I’m talking about Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz. And maybe we can add on late-wave Boomers (both born in 1959) Susana Martinez and Scott Brown.

To be sure, not all the these will run for the White House in ’16. And, of those who do, many have sharp edges and as-yet unvetted secrets that could prevent them from going all the way to nomination. But it is an impressive field, and the Democrats have nothing like it in the bull pen.

In fact, it’s easy to imagine a generational reversal in party candidates. The Democrats in 2016 could very well move back to a Boomer candidate (Hillary, we know you’ve been waiting!), who might encounter little serious competition from Xers. Meanwhile, the Republicans are clearly going to put an Xer at the top of their ticket. Moreover—and this is my second prediction—this Xer is very likely to be nonwhite or Hispanic. (Of the contenders listed above, three are Hispanic and two are Indian.) Given Romney’s exit polls, many GOP leaders will regard the elevation of a minority standard bearer for their party as not just a nice-thing-to-do, but as a must-thing-to-do.

A MINORITY SUCCESS STORY

11 comments

Posted on 28th October 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

In a shocking development, it seems a minority class has achieved tremendous educational and economic success through the unusual unheard of method of having parents that get married before having children, staying married, working really really hard, instilling that work ethic in their children, demanding that their children take their education seriously, not getting trapped in self pity when life isn’t fair, not becoming dependent on the state for their subsistence, and always thinking about the future of their kids.

Did I lump an entire minority cohort into one assessment of a cultural phenomenon? How dare I. We all know there must be a lazy good for nothing Asian out there somewhere. Maybe Colma can enlighten us as to why Asians are off the charts on educational scores and household income. Maybe the facts and figures are made up. Maybe all those Asians walking around my campus and overwhelming the library studying are just part of a vast conspiracy. We could never attribute their success to their own efforts and culture of hard work and understanding the importance of education. 

Rise of the Tiger Nation

By LEE SIEGEL

[image] The Image WorksNew U.S. citizens take their oaths in Poughkeepsie, N.Y

Last March, an interviewer archly asked President Barack Obama whether he was aware that he had been “surpassed” by basketball phenomenon Jeremy Lin “as the most famous Harvard graduate.” The question was misformulated. If there was any surpassing going on, it was that Mr. Lin had become, briefly, more famous than Mr. Obama as the country’s most exemplary figure from a hitherto marginalized minority.

Asian-Americans are now the country’s best-educated, highest-earning and fastest-growing racial group. They share with American Jews both the distinction and the occasional burden of immigrant success. WSJ’s Stu Woo talks to author Lee Siegel.

Mr. Lin’s triumph on the basketball court is a living metaphor for the social group he comes from. No one would dispute the opening paragraph of the Pew Research Center’s massive study of Asian-Americans, released over the summer: “Asian-Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States. They are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place more value than other Americans do on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success.” Or as Mr. Lin put it in a video of congratulation he made last spring for the overwhelmingly Asian-American graduates of New York City’s famed Stuyvesant High School: “Never let anyone tell you what you can’t do.”

[image] Mark Peterson/ReduxFormer Washington DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee.

69%

Percentage of Asian-Americans who believe that hard work leads to success, versus 58% of the general public

Source: Pew Research Center

Mr. Lin might well have been thinking of a troubling backhanded homage to Asian-American success. Once upon a time, threatened elites at Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale secretly established a quota—known as the “numerus clausus”—for the number of Jews allowed through their exclusive gates. Today, some of these schools stand accused of discrimination against Asian-American students who, according to recent studies, must score higher than whites on standardized tests to win a golden ticket of admission. It seems that, despite their very different histories in this country, Asian-Americans now share with American Jews both the distinction and the occasional burden of phenomenal immigrant success.

Asian-Americans have become the immigrant group that most embodies the American promise of success driven by will and resolve. When, six years ago, the Korean-American management consultant Yul Kwon won the 13th season of “Survivor,” it must have been a social scientist’s dream come true. The show’s producers had separated that season’s contestants into ethnically and racially divided groups: white, black, Hispanic and Asian-American. Never mind the sorry lack of taste. The crude segregation also served as an illumination, bringing to the surface America’s eternal subterranean scrimmage between newly arrived tribes. Mr. Kwon’s victory made abstract social trends vividly concrete. Not only had Asian-Americans gone beyond Hispanics as the most populous group of new American immigrants. They had risen to the top in the pursuit of the American dream.

For the purposes of demographic studies, Asian-Americans are defined as Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese, with the Chinese being the largest group and the Japanese the smallest. The Pew study is rich with statistics: The Indians and Filipinos lead Asian-Americans in household wealth, Asian-Americans vote mostly liberal, the Japanese and Filipinos are most likely to marry outside their group, more Chinese-Americans than any other Asian-American group say they are doing better materially than their parents were at a similar age.

And Asian-Americans increased their numbers faster than any other race between 2000 and 2010, growing by 46%. From 1980 to 2010, the Asian-American population quadrupled, with Chinese-Americans becoming by far the largest group. Tom Buchanan, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s racist bully in “The Great Gatsby,” would have plotzed (as my Russian-Jewish relatives might have said). At one point in the novel, Buchanan expresses his alarm over the “yellow peril”: “The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged.”

Although the fictional character’s fears might strike us as alien and repellent today, it is not just a blessing but also historically peculiar that more Americans don’t feel the same way, especially given Asian-Americans’ breathtaking success. America has always been a place where rapid assimilation of strangers was accompanied by brutal opposition to same.

image

To be sure, beginning with the large waves of Asian-American immigration in the latter half of the 19th century, the mostly unskilled Asians who worked the farms and mines and built the railroads met violent, sometimes lethal prejudice. Such hostility was officially sanctioned by legislation banning, at different times, Chinese women, all immigrants from China, and then, in 1924, immigrants from any Asian country, period. The internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor is unique in American history—no other immigrant group has ever been imprisoned on American soil en masse because of ethnic guilt-by-association. But since 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act opened the doors to immigrants from Asia, their assimilation into American life has proceeded without the turbulence often faced by other groups.

image
Corbis
 
Contrast the Asian-American saga with that of American Jews, the immigrant group most like them in terms of accomplishment and stability. Central and Eastern European Jews also began coming to America in the late 19th century, but because they didn’t incite the ferocious racial hatred that Asian-Americans first confronted, they established themselves more quickly. At the same time, since they were less culturally reticent and more socially ambitious than Asian-Americans, Jewish immigrants also faced more egregious obstacles to mobility than Asian-Americans did when America once again allowed them in.

By the 1930s, when the only Asian presence in American movies was Charlie Chan, Jews had invented Hollywood out of whole cloth. Back in New York, Jews began redefining stagecraft and acting with the founding of the Group Theater in 1931. Though barred early on from elective office by the Irish, who for a long time had a monopoly on the insurgent ethnic side of mainstream American politics, Jews had already reached the highest political echelons as close advisers to President Wilson. In the 1930s, they were the core of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s so-called brain trust, his inner circle of wise men. By the end of World War II, Jews had achieved prominence in just about every realm of American life.

Yet furtive prohibitions against Jews, as well as entrenched anti-Semitic attitudes, thrived even after the Holocaust, though that unprecedented atrocity had the effect of eventually ending the Ivy League quotas on Jewish admissions. What socially ambitious Jews aspired to were the Elysian fields of WASP bastions such as rarefied country clubs, exclusive professional clubs, white-shoe law firms, prestigious foundations and the like, and these were the very institutions that resisted them the most intensely. As late as 1975, Saul Bellow could complain to an interviewer that “a few years ago it was fashionable to describe Roth, Malamud and me as the Hart, Schaffner and Marx of writing. The Protestant majority thought it had lost its grip, so the ghetto walls went up around us.”

As it happened, 1975 was one year before Bellow was awarded the Nobel Prize, after winning the Pulitzer once and the National Book Award twice. Contrary to Bellow’s somewhat delighted fantasy of persecution, the ghetto walls had come down around Jewish cultural figures decades before. The perception of anti-Semitism often exceeded its reality because, after the Holocaust, any expression of hostility toward Jews got amplified from muted social ugliness into loud moral crime. But there was another factor at work. Having attained prominence and social power, Jews could be disproportionately vociferous and visible in their complaints about rejection and exclusion.

6-in-10

Asian-Americans say American parents put too little pressure on their children to succeed in school

Source: Pew Research Center

Along with their outsider theological status—something not shared by Asians, many of whom are practicing Christians—one reason that anti-Semitism persisted even as Jews ascended in American life was that Jews were frequently in the vanguard of American social and political dissent, from the anarchist Emma Goldman to Yippie Abbie Hoffman and beyond. Not only that, but many of the architects of America’s archenemy, Soviet Communism, had been Jews. As the WASP establishment lost ground to Jewish newcomers, the words “communist” and “Jew” often became synonymous. The association of Hollywood with lax morality, and of Jews with Hollywood, heightened a kind of low-grade hum of anti-Jewish feeling, even as it proved the general acceptance of the Jewish sentiments and sensibility that permeated American entertainment.

Asian-Americans have followed the opposite trajectory from Jewish-Americans. Toxic racism and then prohibitions against immigration prevented them from rising in American society for nearly a century. And then they did so with unique alacrity. Jewish immigrants, whether in the 19th century, in the 1930s as refugees from Hitler or in the 1980s as refugees from the Soviet Union, came here for the most part without a penny to their name. Today, Asian-Americans arrive in America more highly educated, and more prosperous, than any other immigrant group.

Asian-Americans have tended to avoid realms of activity, like politics and entertainment, where what might otherwise be considered the liability of transparent emotion—or the easiness of faking emotion—is a natural asset. Asian cultural prohibitions against public emoting play a role in these choices. There are, of course, numerous Asian-American culture figures and a handful of Asian-American national politicians. But physiognomies whose expressiveness is often lost on Western eyes and a deeply ingrained modesty have, relatively speaking, kept most Asian-American groups away from the public glare and thus out of the cross hairs of American bias and hatred. Insofar as they do play public roles, Asian-Americans are more likely to do pro bono work as lawyers, or to serve in public clinics as doctors, than to appear behind a podium at a political debate or to flicker on the silver screen.

Yet the astounding success of Asian-Americans raises the dark question of how long they will be able to resist attracting the furies of fear and envy, especially during times of economic stress, or of economic and political conflict with countries like China, where the preponderance of Asian-Americans still come from. If China does one day become an explicit antagonist, it seems likely that the anxiety among Chinese-Americans will be even more intense than that of American Jews every time the allegiances of the American-Jewish lobby are questioned.

Some of the more vehement attacks on Amy Chua’s deliberately provocative 2011 memoir of child rearing, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” were perhaps fueled by resentment of Asian-American ascendancy, especially in the context of raising “perfect” children. Confession: I was one of the book’s more vocal detractors. Was I, a Jewish-American writer, driven to pique, in part, by a member of a group that threatens Jewish-American cultural domination, just as American Jews once threatened the WASP mandarinate? Well, maybe.

The subtle vying for success in various realms of American life between Asian-Americans and American Jews makes one wonder what mores and tastes will look like when Asian-Americans begin to exert their own influence over the culture. Will the verbal brio and intellectual bent of Jews, their edgy irony and frank super-competitiveness give way to Asian discretion, deference to the community, and gifts for less verbal pursuits like music, science and math? Will things become, as they once were under WASP hegemony, quieter?

Not if the mercurial nature of culture has anything to do with it. Think of the wild Korean-American comedian Margaret Cho, who belongs on the same family tree of comic art as the wild Jewish-American comedian Sarah Silverman. Jeremy Lin himself, in his video for the class of 2012 at Stuyvesant, included an antic rap song performed with an Asian-American friend. And the speaker who addressed the high school’s graduates in person last June was the 32-year-old Chinese-American actor Telly Leung, a star of the hit TV series “Glee.”

Mr. Leung spoke for over 20 minutes, joking, shouting, making ironic quips, teasing and provoking. At one point, he boasted that he had overthrown his parents’ middle-class expectations of stability and security and made them redefine their idea of the American dream. He sounded, dare I say it, like a certain type of Jew. Which is another way of saying that he sounded like everyone who comes to America from somewhere else and ends up exemplifying, anew, a native irreverence and vitality that is as old as the American hills.

HOW LIBERALS DESTROY EDUCATION

9 comments

Posted on 1st June 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

The liberal, do-gooder, diversity loving, douchebags in this country don’t give a shit about excellence. They don’t want high achieving students to soar. They don’t care about supporting our best and brightest. They have a liberal agenda to push. Schools that have proven to be the best in the country and have drawn the best of the best are the enemy of these liberal scum. How dare they only accept the best students with the highest academic credentials. Why should only the children that study the hardest get rewarded? What about the dregs? They deserve to go to top notch schools too. Just because they can’t add, write, or read doesn’t mean they don’t deserve entrance to the best schools. I’m sure if they are around really smart kids who study, something will rub off. Look what busing has done for American educational excellence.

This political correctness and diversity agenda is destroying our educational system. Just because Johnny or Lakesha can’t read or write doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to be praised and honored. This is America. We must boost up the self esteem of lazy morons and dumbasses. You know why Asians make up 50% of the enrollment at Thomas Jefferson High even though Asians only make up 5% of the U.S. population? Because their parents are married and put education first as a priority in their lives. Go to any college library at 10:00 pm and observe who are there studying. Hard work, intelligence, skill and dedication are what should be rewarded in this country – not skin color. 

Quota system would dilute school’s quality

Thursday, May 31,2012

One of the nation’s top-ranked public high schools has run into a problem it probably never thought it would have to deal with, and many educators believe it portends some difficult times ahead for efforts to promote the nation’s best and brightest students.

After several decades of rewarding excellence, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology finds itself with a third of its entering class facing remedial instruction in the very things for which they were supposed to be selected: math and related subjects. The culprit seems to be none other than political correctness, stemming from pressures to achieve diversity in its enrollment.

Administrators at the school in Alexandria, Va. — appalled by the sudden rise of remedial instruction from just under 8 percent to 30 percent — have rushed back to the chalkboard to find a solution to what many teachers, parents and national educators see as severely damaging the institution’s elite status. It’s usually ranked at or near the top by ratings agencies — No. 2 this year by U.S. News and World Report — and wealthy Chinese families reportedly search for ways to send their children to Northern Virginia for an opportunity to go to TJ, as it’s known.

The magnet school’s enrollment lacks ethnic diversity, with over 50 percent of its students of Asian extraction and only a relative handful of Hispanic and African Americans. But it was never meant to be a normal high school. Racial diversity wasn’t a factor in deciding 30 years ago to create TJ, at the time merely a good secondary school in a string of them in the central part of the county. It was a roaring success because it was built on an admissions policy based solely on merit without consideration for gender or race. Going there meant a rigorous application process, followed by more rigorous classroom demands that frightened even some of the most gifted students.

But those who graduated from TJ found themselves courted by the nation’s elite colleges and universities, from the Ivies to the West Coast. Harvard, it is said, has a quota on how many it will take. Is that an example worth saving and promoting across the country? Of course. And while TJ’s mental giants still are being sought after and fought over, the new statistics have raised an element of doubt about how good it really is or will continue to be. If that is the case, it is a tragedy for a nation struggling to meet future needs in strategic areas.

Those who want to see this model of perfection diluted by a push to make it more representative of the county or region are doing themselves and their children and grandchildren a major disservice. Sociological concerns have no place in this experiment. No one should be admitted who does not meet its standards of excellence. There should be no quota system here.

This is a school that has turned down hundreds, if not thousands, of scholars who would qualify for any other institution in America. I know several with extraordinary grades through middle school, in every discipline, who missed the cut for TJ. One I know well shrugged it off to attend a top 100 school and ended her high school career with a 4.6 average and an International Baccalaureate degree. She never had less than an A in K through 12 and still hasn’t in her first two years of college.

But TJ is supposed to be a clearinghouse for only the brightest, and if that meant not being able to take them all, so be it.

The school authorities now have seen what it means to consider any other criteria but academics in their admissions policy. Caving in to political correctness is not the course they should have even contemplated under the circumstances, and to have done so is bad precedent for the school’s many imitators all of which are seeking to improve the country’s disappointing 26th standing in math and science.

They are now scrambling to do something about it. One can only hope that they succeed in repairing any damage to TJ’s mission.

E-mail Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, at thomassondan@aol.com.

PHILA PUBLIC SCHOOLS – A PORTRAIT

51 comments

Posted on 6th September 2010 by avalon in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

South Philadelphia High School has 18% Asian students, 70% black, and 6% white. It has 1,500 students. Taxpayers put out $16,000 per student per year. In 2009 only 111 kids even took the SAT exam. That is out of 500 or so that could have taken it. The average Math score was 396 and the average Verbal score was 337 for a total average score of 733. In 2001 the scores were 401 for Math and 326 for Verbal for a combined score of 727. So much for No Child Left Behind. My school district is North Penn. It is not a great school district. There are hundreds of morons. Their average SAT scores were 548 for Math and 523 for Verbal for a total score of 1,071.

The dropout rate for South Phila High is 13%. The dropout rate at North Penn is 1.2%.

The Asian students are there to get an education. Many are recent immigrants from China. As they go back to school this week, they are more concerned with not being murdered by the animals that dominate the school. Last December 3, 26 Asian students were beaten in the halls of this lovely educational institution by gangs of black animals. The blacks know that the Asians will get ahead in life because they study and work hard, while the blacks are doing crack. The Asians have strong families who encourage achievement. Half the black kids in South Philly High don’t even know who their daddy is.

This is what 40 years of Democratic control of the Phila public school system has achieved. Gangland violence in hallways, horrific SAT scores, putrid graduation rates, and all for only $16,000 per student per year. The administrator’s solution is more surveillance cameras.

My solution is a 10 megaton bomb dropped on this piece of shit excuse for a school.

South Philadelphia High Asian students get safety instruction

By Jeff Gammage

Inquirer Staff Writer

Many Asian students who walk into South Philadelphia High on Tuesday morning will be carrying something besides books.

In pockets and purses, they’ll tote a pamphlet called “Staying Safe.” It was given to them by community leaders who ran a special orientation aimed at teaching the students an important lesson: what to do if they’re attacked at school.

Knowing how to report harassment or assault is a skill most would prefer not to need. But it’s the reality of life at the school, where 30 Asians were attacked by groups of mostly African American students Dec. 3.

The violence sent seven Asians to hospitals and led about 50 to stage a weeklong boycott.

“I want the students to be prepared. I want them to know what to expect,” said Xu Lin, an organizer with the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corp., who helped lead last week’s three-hour training program.

When school starts, South Philadelphia High will be led by its fifth principal in six years, burdened by academic failure and outfitted with extensive new security and programming.

Last week, school administrators held new-student orientation, a day complete with cheerleaders in uniform and volleyball-team hopefuls knocking a ball around the gym.

The Asian session was a study in contrast. At FACTS charter school in Chinatown, three dozen students from Myanmar, China, Nepal, Vietnam, and elsewhere gathered to listen and talk.

“You guys are walking into the continuing story,” Nancy Nguyen, head of the local chapter of Boat People SOS, told the students. “We don’t know if the school is better. There are a lot of changes, but we don’t know if it’s better.”

The changes include security cameras and programming additions such as an Asian arts initiative and an in-school center for immigrants. A new antiharassment policy is in the works. The Justice Department, which recently informed the district it found merit to the Asian students’ civil-rights complaint, could impose more change.

At FACTS, organizers explained what harassment looks and sounds like, a raw introduction to students new to American culture and schools. Harassment, students heard, can be based on the place of your birth, the accent of your speech, or the shape of your eyes.

The instruction cut close to the bone, particularly when the leaders distributed a list of racial slurs and told the students: It’s wrong. And you need to know that slurs can escalate quickly and violently.

That’s common knowledge to children raised in America. But immigrants can be too limited in English to recognize racist language – and the danger it may portend.

Most of the students were heading into ninth grade at the school, which is 18 percent Asian and 70 percent African American. Some were hearing for the first time that Asians could be targets.

“If they come to beat us up, I’ll just go to the principal,” said Ghanashyam Gautam, 14, who emigrated from Nepal two years ago.

New principal Otis Hackney battled through rush-hour traffic so he could attend.

“You all know what happened last year much better than I,” Hackney told the students, his words translated and electronically transmitted to headsets. “My pledge is to make sure nothing like that ever, ever happens again.”

If something happens and students feel the staff is not listening, they should come directly to him, he said. If they can’t speak English, they should still come to him – he’ll see they’re upset and find a translator.

“I am your principal,” Hackney said, biting off each word. “I’m not asking you to trust me from Day One. But I am asking for the opportunity to earn your trust.”

‘Let us know’

The training program broke into subgroups. In one, a dozen students from Nepal squeezed around a table, all eyes focused on Nguyen, the Boat People SOS leader.

“I want to let you know what happened,” she began, telling the story of Dec. 3, ending with how Asian students stayed out of school.

“They got suspended?” one boy asked.

“No, they boycotted,” Nguyen answered.

“What,” another boy inquired, “is a boycott?”

The Asian students stood up for themselves, she said.

A discussion ensued in Nepalese. One boy wanted to know, if someone punches him, what should he do? Run away?

The first thing, Nguyen answered, is to get to a safe place. Write down everything that happened. And call one of the Asian leaders.

“It’s important for you guys to let us know if something happens,” Nguyen said.

Easing the fear

The training program was set up by the South Philadelphia High School Asian Student Advocates, a coalition of advocacy organizations.

At times, the students’ moods turned somber, as if they were asking themselves: What am I getting into at the school? At other moments, their teenage buoyancy rose, girls sharing cups of salt-and-vinegar potato chips and boys poking one another.

“Last year, I feel like when I go to school it was scary all the time. This year it’s going to be better,” said Meh Sha Lin, a senior whose family fled Myanmar for a refugee camp in Thailand, coming here in 2007.

In an interview, Hackney was asked if the session was a plus or a minus, positive because students got safety information, negative because they needed it.

“You have to put it in context of what happened last year, and understanding student apprehensions and fears,” he said. “I can understand that. That’s why it’s important for me to be here.”

One girl, a new junior, said learning what to do and whom to call had made her confident, not fearful.

“I learned to protect myself,” she said.

Still, she declined to be identified by name or homeland. If people knew her, she said, trouble might follow.