Asian-Americans Suing Harvard Say Admissions Files Show Discrimination
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Honestly when you look at the data, its hard to believe there has been no major backlash on a national level until this point, especially when you consider a majority believe there is discrimination against them [3]. One reason could perhaps be the fact that Asians outperform other groups on a variety of positive societal metrics (income, wealth, education). [1,2]
Anyway, whether or not you think we should or should not do anything about it is up to your political tastes, but I for one am at least happy its getting some national attention - given my own personal experience and just knowing what the data says. Admittedly, if the data looked a lot different I would be more inclined to rule this out as bogus.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
2. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
3. https://www.npr.org/assets/news/2017/12/discriminationpoll-a...
4. http://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discrimination...
So you mention "knowing what the data says" -
* Asian Americans represent 5.6% of the US population[1].
* The most recently admitted class at Harvard was 22.7% Asian American.
Is that "blatant discrimination"? If it is, at what percentage would it not be?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_American... [2]: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/3/29/harvard-regular-...
But the idea that Harvard admissions is purely merit based is a joke, so this is very hard to pin down.
Imagine you have a Hispanic doctor, but you know that the MCAT score for a Hispanic to get into med school is lower than the score an Asian would need. Now you question whether your doctor is as qualified as they should be because of their race, even if they did have an amazing MCAT score.
Affirmative action is blatantly racist from all angles.
People use race as a proxy for class. But it isn't the only thing. And the more people pretend race is the deciding factor, and not class, the more shitty laws and rules we have in place trying to fix a symptom of a disease everyone wants to pretend isn't there.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-...
A quote from the first article:
> “One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”
And your own sources disprove your claim. Black women earn more than white women. At best you're showing that sexism matters more than racism. But it's only sexism when it happens to women, just like it's only racism when it happens to blacks.
At any rate, anyone who claims race trumps class has not been paying attention: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833...
Unless of course you think the US has suddenly become racist against middle aged white men? Instead of the simpler explanation that race was a good proxy for class from 1940 to 1980 and has completely broken down since, but people whose livelihoods depend on it peddle it like economists paddle trickle down economics.
It seems that you are one, since you're claiming that class matters more than race. I.e. you claim that race doesn't matter very much, which suggests that you are post-racial.
> Black women earn more than white women. At best you're showing that sexism matters more than racism. But it's only sexism when it happens to women, just like it's only racism when it happens to blacks.
If the issue was purely of sexism you'd see white males and black males with the same socioeconomic backgrounds have equivalent social mobility because "race doesn't matter". But article [1] refutes that with a chart that clearly shows a huge difference in social mobility between white males and black males of the same background.
Sexism is when men aren't paid the same amount as women. That's not the same as a trend between males that shows differences in pay which disappears when looking at women. In other words, people are less racist towards black women compared to black men. That's a problem with racism, not sexism (unless you're suggesting that we should be more racist towards black women so that we aren't as sexist towards black men).
> anyone who claims race trumps class has not been paying attention: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/5210833....
This article doesn't support your point. In particular, it supports a claim that mortality rates are rising for middle class white males because their prosperity has decreased in the last few years. It doesn't even control for background. That is different from my point, which says that when controlling for background, race affects socioeconomic mobility.
In fact, your sources support my claim. The NPR article mentions how middle class blacks haven't felt an increase in mortality rates. That suggests that there's something different about people from different races - maybe that middle class blacks barely had an increase in prosperity to begin with.
As for the controls in your article it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women. That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor.
Unless you want to explain how the US is racist towards white women and black men? But not white men and black women.
Potato, potahto.
> it completely glosses over the fact that black women have less chance of losing socioeconomic status than white women.
No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races.
> That alone kills the argument that race is the primary factor.
No. Maybe black men are often profiled as criminals or untrustworthy, but the same is not true for black women. That alone would still be evidence of racism - just not as much towards black women.
To prove that class is the only effect and not some other factor like race you'd have to show that, controlling for class, outcomes are equal. But these articles do control for class and find that outcomes are drastically different. This must mean that class is not the only driver of outcome. It's possible that the real reason isn't because of race - maybe it's actually because every black male in the country for some reason keeps having their memory corrupted by random cosmic rays. But it's still abundantly clear that there's something else contributing to outcomes besides class, and the most obvious (and most likely) is race.
In any case, your original contention (that class is the only driver) still falls.
Oh good. When do we get google nationalized? And a wealth tax? And when do we close the stock markets? Also when do the trials for crimes against the people start, we'll only need to arrest 95% of all politicians. And of course we will be disbanding the mercenary army and replacing it with a conscription army where everyone has to spend 3-5 years. There's a few hundred more things that need to be done. But since all liberals are socialists we shouldn't have a problem with any of them.
>No. The article suggests that it is evidence that there's probably no intelligence/ability discrepancy between different races.
You have variables race and gender, the variables can take on two values each. The claim is that race is more important than gender. Call it the function f that maps race r ={w,b} and gender g = {m,f} to an arbitrary value: f : r,g -> R.
Since we can just look at the values from the graph we can see that the outcome function f has the following property: f(b,m) < f(f,w) < f(f,b) < f(m,w)
So the suggestion that race is the primary cause of worse outcomes is clearly wrong since black women are better off than white women and black men. Similarly the idea that sexism is the cause is also wrong since black men are worse off than every body and white men are better off than everybody.
So you can either admit that race and sexism have no explanative power and accept the fact that class is the predominant factor with some interesting but ultimately trivial second order effects, or you can start doing gender studies and talk about the white male patriarchy and how it keeps everyone down.
I'm guessing you'll pick the second since it helps the capitalists stay in power and you have been exposed to their propaganda you whole life.
And, of course, that idea itself rests on the notion of an inherent superiority on one-side. To be clear, I don't believe that's part of the conscious thinking, but I do believe this oversight is illustrative of the kinds of blind-spots that tacitly guide a lot of thinking on these issues.
That's an unpopular thing to say but that doesn't make it any less true.
Part of the reason these policies are based on race and not some other socioeconomic standard was to get around the problem that the people making the admission decisions were racist (or at least biased).
Racists probably question.
If being color blind upholds, and being color biased upholds. What should we do.
There’s a separate issue that if you think there isn’t systemic racism against Asian Americans then you may want to practice empathizing. So if there’s historic systemic racism against certain groups, isn’t it worse to identify some groups and turn the screws on them? A vengeance based social policy will be difficult to implement as the perpetrators already got theirs out of the education system and it will likely have lots of negative consequences and lead to a worse society.
I realize I've practically described affirmative action. But there's varying ways to implement this system that avoids certain complaints. Let's say Harvard always admits 5000 students a year, they could add a bonus pool of 1000 students set aside for this. On the other hand if they're concerned about overwhelming their faculty they could admit 4000 students through normal means and 1000 from the special set aside.
One of the objections to this is it's unfair to the 4000 or 5000 students who will now receive a lesser education because of some wrongs that they weren't responsible for.
I'd like to propose it's equally unfair that students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds because of explicit decisions that these institutions made are denied a similar education. In this case should our institutions take no action to avoid upsetting the status quo and maintain a "color blind" ideal, or should they take active actions to rectify historic wrongs that continue to create inequality in the current day?
It’s like poking out a random person’s eye because racists blinded someone. Yes it helps the person who can now see, but the person who lost their eye will likely be bitter.
The best program I’ve seen is the dedicated funding to expand new positions and try to target the expansion toward underrepresented. So while the ratios are still weird, people aren’t being excluded.
Of course this is the most expensive option, especially in zero sum games like Harvard admissions. It’s easier to target some less visible vulnerable population and reallocate the positions.
I do agree that being truly color blind keeps populations lacking 100 years of opportunity locked in a cycle. But perhaps we can get more precise with targeting based on income, or social determinants, or factors that are not specific to race and are more likely to provide opportunity to need. Of course many populations also share social determinants like income, parents education, country of birth, etc.
The problem is not "compounding returns", it is genetics and, to a lesser extent, culture.
Until this fact, which most educated people know but are terrified to say aloud, is admitted and reckoned with, no progress will be made. This will hurt non-asian minorities the most.
Replace 'genetics' with 'astrological sign' and you see how absurd this argument is.
The consensus amongst neurobiologists is that adult IQ is somewhere between 70-80% based on genetic factors. I invite you to read "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" by Richard Haier, and the many studies cited therein.
Comparing this scientific work with astrology is clownish, on par with young earth creationism.
Of course this isn’t absolute as there are other factors to consider. But this is what I mean by saying these kinds of interventions increase racism. Since in your example this could lead to patients discriminating against Hispanic doctors.
There shouldn't be any systemic race-based anything.
Unfortunately, however, there is.
But I also think it's a fallacy that one's professional performance is highly correlated with their acceptance scores.
I'm very pro-diversity but this is just too high a price to pay. Everyone in the rainbow classroom will look around and know that the bars were different. They just won't say it out loud for fear of social reprisals.
Furthermore, based on my college experiences, the issue with diversity in college isn't even the lack of it. It's the lack of integration. You still end up seeing the various racial groups sticking to themselves. Whatever benefits diversity brings is probably diluted until that is resolved.
The entire American system is set up to make it as easy as possible for wealthy kids to go to college.
Somehow I've yet to hear one wealthy family objecting "This hurts my kid, because he is completely able to enter college on his own, but thanks to the system it will look like he got in only because he's wealthy! Make the system more fair!"
Anybody who says Affirmative action actually "hurts" disadvantaged kids had better be able to explain the above discrepancy.
I'm OK with Affirmative action.
I suppose there are some people arguing against you, but it may be more productive to argue the point at hand.
Or at least we can all nod and agree that the net gain to recipients of affirmative action outweighs any negatives. And move on to the lawsuit’s question of “Why should Asian Americans suffer?”
I completely agree with your point about wealth being very important. But it’s not a good analogy to affirmative action based on some races. I’ve spent a bit of time in Ivy League schools and it’s still wealthy minorities who are the main benificiary of affirmative action. So wealth is a given for admission regardless of if you’re pro-AA or anti-.
https://nypost.com/2015/04/12/mindy-kalings-brother-explains...
I like to check random boxes. Given the precarious definition of race one could probably argue they belong to any race.
What’s the threshold?
I really wanted the Rachel Dolezal to get into a court case somehow just to see what the legal ruling is.
If someone who is 99.99% ashkenazi and 0.01% African truly believes she is black, who is a Harvard admissions person to contract them?
Logically, this follows to a pretty weird place. With trends in census showing increase in multiracial populations, I hope it becomes a moot point before society goes full retard with “racial impurity” tests.
Discussions about breaking down ethnic data into more granular countries and incorporating more socioeconomic factors need to be more strongly considered before implementing something like this.
Eg. The median Indian American isn't the same as the median Vietnamese American. And neither are the opportunities for kids growing up in two different cities in America.
But for the most part these racial distinctions are all pretty hokey and you can check whatever you want. I’m not sure why it’s more valid to classify by skin tone vs hair color vs hand width or whatever. I can understand the unjust classification within certain cultures in isolation because it probably closely associated with certain classes or religions.
But classifying a black-skinned Indian South Asian and a brown-skinned Ethiopian (both also Caucasian) makes no real sense. Even from a social justice persective as which background has it worse off?
Is a light-skinned African-American have more or less systematic oppression than a dark-skinned South Asian? Or a dark-skinned AA vs a light-skinned SA?
There’s all sorts of interesting and confusing scenarios. I’m not sure what to do nor what is right, so I largely just muffle up and/or wait for the loudest shouting groups to figure it out.
Things did not go well for an immigrant friend of mine who was white South African who signed up for an African American law program. But when the all white engineering team won the state championship challenge for minority schools, that was fine. It was a weird quirk in my country where the program was for schools with majority minority students. But most schools had almost entirely Asian and white teams because the schools had small non-minority populations.
I was not accepted by this university, but fellow students from much more desirable demographic groups (from an affirmative action perspective) were. They were all wealthy, quite possibly from wealthier families than my own. And they had different skin color and/or gender.
These were students who couldn't even handle AP calculus (and if you knew the name of this university, you'd be shocked), let alone match my extracurricular activities, test scores, etc.
One of them had enough self awareness and integrity to apologize to me, and openly blamed affirmative action for her being accepted instead of me.
The others let it get to their heads.
From a cosmic justice standpoint, the valedictorian is now pretty wealthy 35 years later and the ivy leaguer never worked and lived off family and spouse money.
Asian enrollment percentage at Caltech (strictly meritocratic admissions) doubled with a doubling in the absolute size of the college-age Asian population; on the other hand the percentage Asian enrollment at all the Ivies stayed approximately the same.
Assuming Asians didn't stop applying to the Ivies in direct proportion to their population increase, at best this looks like reverse disparate impact; at worst, race-based quotas or admission standards.
We know from hard data that students from some communities are at an inherent disadvantage in the education system. From family environments to poverty to the mental strain of everyday racism to school funding to parental involvement, some students are at a severe disadvantage. Even when of equal intelligence, maturity and potential.
What universities do is account for these disadvantages in the mix. Is the system perfect? No. But it's good for our collective society, even if a few overachievers have to settle for Yale.
Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.
The "fair thing" is the matter of perspective that's being debated.
I don't think that comment could be any more centered at the heart of this debate. Thanks.
The problem with your reasoning though, is that it starts in the middle. It wipes away history and fast-forwards us to a state of egalitarianism that doesn't exist. That is, it really just begs the question by assuming the very reality we seek to create.
So, where we agree is that any sort of consideration of race is lamentable. Where we depart is in the idea that we address that fact by discounting the history that got us here and also ignoring that we're actually still here.
In other words, this idea that we just do nothing and hope that people will suddenly stop discriminating completely offloads the burden of unfairness to those who have already been systematically and inter-generationally disenfranchised/disadvantaged; and so can least afford such a laissez-faire approach. It's easy to say "hey, let's just all love one another". But, what are generations of systematically disenfranchised people supposed to eat while we're waiting patiently for our society to get there?
Which leads to...
>At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group
No fun answer here, but here's what it comes down to: Yes, individuals in the latter group may experience some "unfairness". But, as a whole, which group can best weather a bit of "unfairness"? Is it the group that has other options because they won the birth lottery or those who are hanging on by a thread due to a host of complicated historical reasons that essentially boil down to their complexion? This is a cold truth and it churns my stomach to posit it, but it's the hard reality of the reasoning.
I want to qualify my "birth lottery" comment though. Because, what is incorrect is the idea that every member of the majority has these tremendous advantages simply by being a member. What I'd really like to see is a system that acknowledges people's station in life and history, irrespective of race.
For instance, if we were to say that coal-miners in West Virginia are having a rough go of it and set aside some educational opportunities and jobs specifically to transition those folks, I think most of us can get behind that. And, we would accept as the cost that "a Kid in the Suburbs" might lose a scholarship as a result.
Affirmative action is no different. A harder irony is that it is deliberately ginned-up racial animus that has birthed much of the discrimination that created the need for affirmative action and simultaneously generated resentment for those who benefit from it.
Asian-Americans score great in standardized tests, (for both genetic and cultural reasons), but high SAT scores soon becomes a problem of 'overfitting', where SAT scores are a great indicator of success in life, they are still only one dimension of success indicator.
If you create a system where it accepts/rejects candidates only on one dimension (SAT scores), you will soon end up with a flawed system. Also, spending all your time in studying standardized tests, will make you overfitted in one dimension. Real life is not one giant standardized test.
AI 102
As for colleges they should have a transparent admission criteria, as right now it is very subjective and will be obviously been seen as flawed.
Eg.
30% is SAT Scores
30% is your high school gpa
20% is you curriculum and activities
20% is other shit we think is important, etc...
then you will know where you stand
>"Generally speaking, the SAT is not very important," said Marilyn McGrath, director of undergraduate admissions at No. 1 ranked Harvard College.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/admiss...
From my experience, both being an Asian and being surrounded by them, Asians are good at getting into universities/jobs/whatever because they very consciously try to play the "game".
It could be SAT scores, algorithm questions, vocabulary, ability to play an instrument, etc.
All of my friends knew or at least thought they knew what universities cared about, and then got extra schooling to prepare exactly those things. Some people even hire people to help them write their essays who I guess are "experts" at writing applications.
Or maybe I am naive
If that is true, then the suit has merit.
> Speaking as an Asian, the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity makes my blood boil. This PR rep is barely even trying to hide the real implication here: "we want our class to be visibly colorful". That's some grade A bullsh*t.
But the thing is, it's not meaningless right? Diversity has been shown to be good for performance, or at least I assume that's why they care.
I'm very curious how this will turn out. In my mind, the question is now whether it's still considered discrimination even though it's no longer a case of "all else being equal".
Of phenotype and national origin? Has it really?
But making the leap that this somehow means that skin/gender diversity equates to higher performance is quite a leap.
The instructor’s argument went something like this. “A bunch of studies show diversity improves outcome. A bunch of studies show people are racist against these populations. Therefore since having more of this population increases diversity, we need program XYZ.”
The class was infuriating, because the instructor kept using these studies as evidence and then directly linking it to a call for increased representation through positive discrimination for a few select minorities. Many questions were flippantly dismissed as “they’ll get their turn.” Of course this frustrates the different minorities who also wanted to be included.
I never got stuck on the logical leap of “If A then B. If C then D. Therefore A = D.”
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-011-9250-x
> By diversity, we mean differences in how agents build problem representations which allow them to access various solutions. We deploy the concept of diversity along two dimensions: knowledge amplitude, which accounts for the level of available knowledge allowing access to poorer or richer problem representations (compared with complete problem representations), and knowledge variety, which pertains to the differences in the constituents of agents’ representations.
So it just further demonstrates the logical gap between A=B and C=D, since the studies didn't even show A=B, they showed E=F
Having grandparents who were treated as subhumans by the grandparents of the people who are now telling you that you are too privileged to be treated equally.
But if you move to the middle of no where in the deep south, in 20 years, you might not get police beating you as violently when they arrest you, if you're rich.
And you're racist if you bring that up.
Speaking as an Eastern European.
Welcome to being (situationally) white. You had a good run, but you've been on track to join the jews in assimilation limbo for quite some time.
My point is about being treated as white when it's convenient, and being treated as non-white when convenient. All depending on the biggot's current goal at any one point in time. It's the limbo state for any group that assimilates but retain distinguishing characteristics that make them stand out from the pool of caucasians (a group that used to have deep seated strife over country of heritage, but now are treated as one due to their more amorphous distinguishing characteristics).
You really have no point. You were trying to evoke some fist shaking gentile mad at them thar jews and gooks. It doesn't exist, and in fact the gentile is getting steamrolled.
Jesus Christ dude, quit putting words in my mouth.
Saying "welcome to being white" wasn't saltiness, I was making a glib comment Asians have assimilated enough, they're going to get treated more like white people (e.g. "diversity" in tech (and now, apparently, higher ed) changing from "less whites" to "less whites and Asians").
I don't think my posts harbor any resentment toward Asians or the Jewish, I was trying to be sympathetic toward them by hedging my glib blanket comment and acknowledging the fact they're exposed to the worst of both worlds as bigots' prerogative will treat them in whatever context that best serves their end.
I should have bailed when you said "victimology" and name dropped Unz.
I'm not here to break out my A Beautiful Mind corkboard and reinvent tolerance from first principles. I was just commiserating with a point that it sucks to be on the receiving end of "the insinuation that my race might be considered a meaningful dimension in the pursuit of class diversity".
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem
By 1919 ... Jews at Harvard tripled to 21% of the freshman class in 1922 from about 7% in 1900. Ivy League Jews won a disproportionate share of academic prizes and election to Phi Beta Kappa but were widely regarded as competitive, eager to excel academically and less interested in extra-curricular activities such as organized sports. Non-Jews accused them of being clannish, socially unskilled and either unwilling or unable to“fit in.”
In 1922, Harvard's president, A. Lawrence Lowell, proposed a quota on the number of Jews gaining admission to the university. Lowell was convinced that Harvard could only survive if the majority of its students came from old American stock.
Lowell argued that cutting the number of Jews at Harvard to a maximum of 15% would be good for the Jews, because limits would prevent further anti-Semitism. Lowell reasoned, “The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense.”
Is it racism to punish members of the majority that are "too successful"? I'm not trying to make a point with this question - I am just asking.
It would seem more "fair" to instead factor in your parents' income or education, or what kind of neighborhood or high school you're from.
No no, much better to start from the upper middle class and work your way up. While making sure you have as much possible visible diversity to hide the fact everyone in the class has exactly the same upbringing.
I went to an ivy league and so many of the minorities were nothing of the sort. Props to the 'African American' who shall remain nameless, but was the grandson of an African general who had killed tens of thousands of women and children, stolen as much money as he could, sent his son off to America before the coup, and had a blond blue eyed former model for a mother. That guy needed all the help he could get because slavery.
NYTimes: http://reappropriate.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nytimes-a...
Economist: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T5jqm6t78Mo/VsELOqHiXiI/AAAAAAAAQ...
Notably, Caltech has race-neutral admissions, and their Asian enrollment has tracked the increase in the general population.
EDIT: Note that the plots show total number of Asians rather than the Asian fraction of the population, which would be a more appropriate benchmark since the total population is growing. However, between 1990 and 2011 the US population grew by just shy of 25% while the Asian population more than doubled.
Is this really about discrimination against Asian-Americans?
It's not at all. Unsurprisingly, East Asian and South Asian community groups have by and large gone incredibly far out of their way to distance themselves from this lawsuit. It took Blum a comically long period of time even to find people with standing who were willing to participate in it.
You won't find that to be the predominant sentiment on HN, but HN has never been particularly representative of other populations when it comes to political topics, especially race and discrimination.
HN does not provide a representative view of any group other than "HN readers".
It doesn't even do a great job of representing programmers, or people who work in tech. So if you come to HN and expect the things you read to be representative of any group broader than that, you'll end up pretty far off the mark.
Same goes for any other site that people comment on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751922
I guarantee you that readers with opposite views to yours have opposite views of HN's "recognizable slant". Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397133 to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16407769. Or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16134205 to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16750306. And so on.
Sorry, but is this claim based on pageviews, or the origins of the comments being posted?
It's not like guardian.co.uk/international is in fact international news and opinion.
The point, though, is that people coming here are coming from many different countries, so opinion is more divided than it would be from just one. There aren't only political and ideological divides, but national, cultural, and linguistic ones. Understandably—because the information isn't available—people don't take this into account. That unfortunately leads to a lot of misunderstanding and even ill will.
Why not make it available?
A vague question
The numbers depend on how you measure 'user' and 'location'
Gets a vague answer.
My question was specifically about the commentariat not eyeballs.
I don't think myself as worthy of an answer specifically to me. I think it would be for the best benefit of others if not buried in some obscure thread.
In short, this is a devious way of disrupting affirmative action and I’m simultaneously impressed and horrified.
>strawman
Yes, I know they might have slightly better chance of acceptance if Affirmative action is gone. So what?
http://www.radiolab.org/story/more-perfect-plaintiffs/
and
Meanwhile Asian people are actually pissed off for the right reasons.