Woman of Color Lady Liberty on New U.S. Currency

Doesn't bother me.

That's a nice looking coin!

For the First Time, Lady Liberty Depicted as a Woman of Color on U.S. Currency https://t.co/UffU5lHduw

— EAGLE WINGS (@ConstanceQueen8) January 13, 2017

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: Efforts to Abolish the Electoral College 'All About Race' (VIDEO)

I watched this last night and thought nothing of it.

Once again, O'Reilly hit the nail on the head. And like clockwork, leftists were outraged for O'Reilly telling it like it is.

this is getting lots of attention tonight https://t.co/SYlsj80HzB

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) December 21, 2016

.@oreillyfactor: “The left wants power taken away from the white establishment and they want a profound change in the way America is run.” pic.twitter.com/EggkBz7kvZ

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 21, 2016

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly under fire for race comments: "The left wants power taken away from the white establishment" https://t.co/qxBfsChIKw pic.twitter.com/RkaPfIRvvU

— CNN (@CNN) December 21, 2016

Rural Hispanic Voters Shifted to Donald Trump

Well, this certainly goes against the "racist" Trump voters smear.

At least 29 percent of Latinos supported Trump, which is more than those Hispanics supporting Mitt Romney in 2012.

Leftist are gobsmacked, I'm telling you.

At WaPo, "Rural Hispanic voters — like white rural voters — shifted toward Trump. Here’s why":

Fascinating: Rural Hispanic voters — like white rural voters — shifted toward Trump. Here's why. https://t.co/nVNbLdqf74 @gerry_cadava

— Kathy Cramer (@KathyJCramer) November 18, 2016

Many observers contend that Hispanic voters will shape the future of American politics. But it’s not yet clear exactly what their influence will be. There’s been debate about whether they may portend a permanent Democratic majority; vote according to ethnic backgrounds — Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban American; or hold political points of view that vary by economics or region, much like other Americans.

With the 2016 election, we have a new set of data to help us investigate this question. My county-by-county comparison of election results in 2016 and 2012, drawn from data available at CNN.com, Politico.com, PBS.org and other sites, shows that rural white and rural Hispanic voters have a lot in common.

Or to put it another way, the election of 2016 revealed an urban/rural divide that was as strong as the white/Hispanic divide.

Election analysts have noted that Donald Trump ran up the vote in rural, largely white counties in the Rust Belt and the Midwest. He flipped or narrowed Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in others. Because these rural voters came out so strongly, states that hadn’t helped elect a Republican for a long time — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and most likely Michigan — delivered his electoral victory, however narrowly.

And here’s the surprise: many rural Southwestern counties with large Hispanic, predominantly Mexican populations, moved in Trump’s direction as well.

That wasn’t true in Southwestern states as a whole. States like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas remained blue or became less red. Hillary Clinton got strong Hispanic turnout in Sun Belt metropolises like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and San Antonio.

But if you look closely at many largely Hispanic rural areas in these states, you find that Trump did better — and Hillary did worse — than did Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. Voting in these counties was much like that in similar counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

When postelection reports suggested that Trump performed surprisingly well among Hispanic voters, the polling firm Latino Decisions rejected the claim. The firm specializes in polling Latino voters, and enumerated the risks of relying on exit polls to understand that electorate’s behavior. The firm vigorously defended its own election eve polls, which suggested that Clinton would rack up historically wide margins from Latinos.

But Latino Decisions, in defense of polls it conducted leading up to the election, has focused on overwhelmingly Hispanic precincts in more urban areas, not the rural communities that tell a different story.

In dozens of rural counties throughout the Southwest, Clinton performed worse in 2016 than Obama did in 2012, as you can see in the figure below. In Guadalupe County, N.M., about an hour’s drive east of Albuquerque, she received 17 percent less of the vote than Obama did four years ago — 53 percent compared with Obama’s 70 percent. In several other counties where Hispanics accounted for half to nearly all of the population — Rio Arriba, N.M.; Costilla, Colo.; Greenlee, Ariz.; and Duval, Tex., for example — Clinton took home roughly 10 percent fewer votes than did Obama in 2012. In many more heavily Latino counties, her votes lagged behind Obama’s by 3 to 8 points.

Even in the South Texas counties that Latino Decisions has named bulwarks of Clinton support — the Rio Grande Valley below San Antonio, where she won between 70 and 85 percent of the vote — she didn’t do as well as Obama had done four years earlier. In Brooks County, which, according to the 2015 American Community Survey, is 89.5 percent Hispanic, Clinton’s tally was 3.9 percent less than Obama’s. In Zavala County, which is 93.1 percent Hispanic, it was 5.6 percent less. In Duval County, which is 88.8 percent Hispanic, it was 9.8 percent less.

Meanwhile, as you can see below, Trump did much better among Hispanics in the rural Southwest than Romney did. He received a greater share of the vote than Romney had in more than a dozen counties with large Hispanic populations: six percent more than Romney in Starr County, Tex., which is 95.8 percent Hispanic; 7.5 percent more in Costilla County, N.M., which is 63.6 percent Hispanic; and 9.1 percent more in Duval County, Texas, which is 88.8 percent Hispanic.

Clinton may have received more votes than Obama did in many parts of South Texas, where, as a politically-motivated student at Yale Law School, she knocked on doors in predominantly Mexican neighborhoods for the McGovern campaign. But Trump also received more votes in South Texas than Romney did. Clinton rallied thousands more voters, but so did Trump. His supporters there matched the enthusiasm of Clinton’s, just as they did in dozens of rural counties with large Hispanic populations in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas.

In fact, two Colorado counties where Hispanics constitute about half the population flipped from blue to red. Conejos County, which is 53.7 percent Hispanic, went for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. So did Las Animas County, which is 42.6 percent Hispanic. In both counties, turnout was lower for Clinton than it had been for Obama, and higher for Trump than it was for Romney.

To be sure, some of these rural Southwestern counties are extremely small compared with the big cities where Hispanic support for Clinton was strong. In small counties, the Hispanic vote adds up to hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands — while in cities, it totals hundreds of thousands. Therefore, rural Hispanics won’t be credited with moving the needle much in one direction or the other.

So yes, there was a Hispanic “surge” in big Southwestern cities that helped Clinton hold on to New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, and helped make Trump’s margin of victory in Arizona and Texas narrower than it had been for any Republican in two decades. But that ignores the vote in rural counties across the country — including those that are largely Hispanic — that led to Trump’s victory.

Why would Hispanics vote for Trump, despite his many anti-immigrant and anti-Mexican statements?

One answer: poverty. The Hispanic communities in the rural Southwest that moved toward Trump were some of the poorest in their states.

Take San Miguel, Guadalupe, and Mora Counties in New Mexico, whose populations are 77.1, 79.2, and 80.2 percent Hispanic, respectively. These three counties have New Mexico’s lowest median household income, highest rates of unemployment, and lowest rates of labor market participation. The median income in these counties for families with a head of household between the ages of 25 and 44 is between $25,000 and $30,000 per year, or about half the national median income ($55,000) for families with heads in the same age range. These counties lost, on average, about 5 percent of their population between 2010 and 2015.

In other words, they’ve suffered the same tough economic circumstances as did some of the Midwestern counties that handed Trump the election. They’re more similar to than different from other forgotten counties across the United States, where voters upended the predictions of pollsters and shouted against the status quo.

Ruben Navarette Jr. wrote in The Daily Beast that the election “boiled down to a brutish tug-of-war between Latinos in the battleground states of the West … and working class whites in the Rust Belt” — let’s add the upper Midwest — and “in the end, Trump found enough white voters to offset losses with Latinos.”

But that’s only partly true. In reality, many rural Hispanics and working class whites pulled on the same side of the rope.​

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: The Inclusion Delusion (VIDEO)

An excellent segment, from last night:

Jessica Mendoza Endures Sexism as MLB's First Woman Color Commentator (VIDEO)

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is.

For one thing, if it wasn't for social media you wouldn't be hearing about "rampant" sexism against Ms. Mendoza. Women have been making their way into the top ranks of sports journalism for awhile, and mainstream media hacks are bending over backwards for more "diversity."

Yeah, the Twitter abuse is reprehensible, but then, that's the name of the game nowadays. You know what they say: "If you can't stand the heat..."

In any case, at the Atlantic, "Breaking Into Baseball’s Ultimate Boys’ Club":

Jessica Mendoza, a former athlete and MLB’s first female TV analyst, brings a player’s sensibility to her job. But she’s still subject to the routine abuse directed at women in sports journalism.

An Oscar for the Grievance Industry

I think we've reached a national psychosis on diversity. Things are definitely out of control.

From Joe Hicks, at USA Today:

On the heels of a threatened boycott of this year’s Academy Awards by black film figures comes a well-timed report on diversity in the film and television industries. This report from the aptly named Media, Diversity and Social Change Initiative at University of Southern California-Annenberg's School for Communication and Journalism argues that these industries have “… an inclusion crisis.”

Is there really a crisis in Hollywood? The report’s lead claim, among a number of loaded assertions, appears to be that “only 28%” of all speaking characters across 414 films, television and digital episodes in 2014-15 were from “underrepresented” racial/ethnic groups. However, this is only 9.6% below the U.S. population norm of 37.9% for those minorities, hardly a crisis.

The report’s major argument about racial bias in Hollywood should raise eyebrows. This community of creative artists and film magnates is perhaps the best-known liberal spot in the nation. The rare conservative who works in this milieu mostly keeps his politics in the closet.

Despite this, the writers of the USC report argue that women, ethnic minorities and even gay, lesbian and transgender people were “excluded,” causing an “epidemic of invisibility.” Tell that to the casts and investors in this year’s films “Carol,” and the “Danish Girl” — both up for Oscars and openly involving Lesbian and Transgender issues.

Responding to the #OscarsSoWhite meme, Jada Pinkett Smith (married to actor Will Smith who starred in Concussion and was shut-out of the nominations) announced that she would not attend the awards ceremonies, with others following suit.

Despite all of this angst, if every Oscar awarded by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences went to a black film artist, would the life of any working-class black person be changed one iota?

Will Smith seems to think so. In announcing that he too would be joining his wife in boycotting, Smith said “… This is so deeply not about me. This is about children that are going to sit down, and they’re going to watch a show, and they’re not going to see themselves represented.”

Is all of this simply a political pitch for racial preferences (often called “affirmative action”) in filmmaking? Should film companies be forced to adopt “diversity goals” and/or “suggested” racial quotas when casting actors and funding projects? TV production executives already meet frequently with representatives of minority group advocates to assess whom they hire, whom they depict and what more they can do...

Keep reading.

Awkward Oscar Moments

The Academy Awards is the one awards show I genuinely like, and the one I try to faithfully watch each year.

I don't know how much longer my personal tradition can hold out, however, with all the stultifying political correctness that's taken over everything.

#OscarsSoWhite and all that, you know?

In any case, I love this photo-compilation, at the Los Angeles Times, "23 totally awkward Oscar moments."

As for the political correctness, here's the Times' front-page lead story this morning, "91% white. 76% male. Changing who votes on Oscar won't be easy":

With Sunday’s Oscar show, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will close one of the most contentious awards seasons in its history and open an era of historic change, as the 89-year-old institution launches an ambitious drive to diversify its membership.

A Los Angeles Times study shows just how much work the academy has to do if it intends to reflect the audience it serves — and just how aggressive the group’s new goals are.

In 2012, The Times reported that Oscar voters were 94% white and 77% male. Four years later, the academy has made scant progress: Oscar voters are 91% white and 76% male, according to a new Times study.

Blacks are about 3% of the academy, up from 2%; Asians and Latinos are each just over 2%, with both groups up slightly.

The academy has invited more women and minority group members over the last four years, but with its 6,261 voting members appointed for life, the organization’s ranks were on track to remain overwhelmingly white and male for decades.

Under fire for nominating an all-white slate of actors for two years in a row, the academy last month vowed to double the number of women and minority members by 2020. It also adopted controversial new rules that will allow it to take away voting rights from inactive members.

“Our goal is to make sure that we are active in bringing in different voices regardless of gender or race or sexual orientation,” academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs said in an interview Thursday. “Inclusiveness in this organization, that is our goal.”

Doubling the number of women and minority members over the next four years, however, figures to be daunting.

The academy has about 1,500 women and 535 non-white people who are eligible to vote on the Oscars, according to Times estimates. Based on those findings, doubling their numbers would require inviting at least 375 women and more than 130 people of color each year.

That would demand a dramatic shift in admissions given that the academy's latest class — touted as the largest and most diverse in its history — was only 322 people, most of them white men...

More.

Brown University Changes Name of Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day

This country's becoming increasingly Balkanized, and there's no guarantee that our historic national unity will persevere.

At USA Today, "Brown University changes name of Fall Weekend to Indigenous People's Day."

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Seeks New Rules on Awards Diversity (VIDEO)

Look, leftists love affirmative action quotas.

If that's their stand for college admissions, it should be no different for movie awards. A fixed share of the nominations should go to minorities. Of course, then the question becomes what if minorities don't win? Naturally, then, you'll have to have quotas for the actually winners as well.

That's the leftist way to do it. Either that, or tell the leftist quota industry to got to hell. (And that ain't gonna happen.)

At LAT, "Academy board will weigh new voting rules to encourage diversity":

For the last three years, the awards body has been in the midst of a push for more diversity, inviting larger and demographically broader groups to join its 6,261 voting members, and in November, Boone Isaacs announced a new imitative, called A2020, intended to diversify the staff of the organization. But given the size of the academy, and the fact that members belong for life, any change to the organization's overall demographics has been incremental...

More.

Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith to Boycott Academy Awards

Hey, I actually support this.

Make the Hollywood hypocrites live up to their highfalutin leftist virtues.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith to boycott Oscars; academy responds":

"I am both heartbroken and frustrated about the lack of inclusion," [Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences] President Cheryl Boone Isaacs said in a statement released Monday night. "This is a difficult but important conversation, and it's time for big change."

She added that the academy would be taking "dramatic steps" to alter the makeup of its membership and to accelerate diversity efforts.

Plus, read Boone Isaacs' statement for the Academy, "A statement from Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs."

More at the Hollywood Reporter, "David Oyelowo Goes Off on Oscars: 'I Am an Academy Member and It Doesn't Reflect Me'."

It's Time for Hollywood to Stop Defining Great Drama as White Men Battling Adversity

Ouch.

Following-up from earlier, "#OscarsSoWhite."

Here's Mary McNamara, at the Los Angeles Times:

The winner of the 2016 Oscar in practically every category is … white men facing adversity.

Just two years after the much-touted breakthrough of "12 Years a Slave," the best picture nominees announced Thursday, with a few notable exceptions, follow a dishearteningly repetitive story line of white men triumphing over enormous odds: The Hollywood blacklist ("Trumbo"), the vagaries of Wall Street ("The Big Short"), Cold War politics ("Bridge of Spies"), life alone on Mars ("The Martian"), a grizzly bear attack, murderous companions and the hostilities of a cruel winter landscape ("The Revenant").

Even "Spotlight," with its supporting actress nomination for Rachel McAdams, showcases a group of mostly male journalists struggling to expose the brutal crimes committed by the Catholic Church. And though there is feminine power aplenty in "Mad Max: Fury Road," the film's titular character is, of course, Max, and its lead actress didn't even get a nomination.

To be clear, these are all good stories, powerful, well told and beautifully acted. But in world filled with billions of people who are not white men, they are certainly not the only good stories, not by a long shot.

Though our demographics and attitudes continue to change, Hollywood's definition of great drama has remained stubbornly attached to standards and expectations set back when men were men (if they were white) and everyone else needed to just shut up and listen.

Obviously, plenty of films have challenged this sensibility, telling a wide variety of stories from many points of view. But when it comes to Oscar bait, the default remains too often set at literal reading of the four essential categories of conflict: Man versus man, man versus nature, man versus society and man versus himself. As many have already pointed out, the characters in the lead actor category were a writer, scientist/astronaut, tracker, inventor and artist. The characters in lead actress? Homemaker, mother/rape survivor, inventor, wife, clerk.

Certainly "Straight Outta Compton," "Creed," "Concussion" and "Beasts of No Nation" fit the "classic" definition of literary conflict. They just didn't fit, apparently, academy voters' ideas of a classic best picture...

Hypocritical, racist Hollywood.

Who woulda thunk it?!!

Still more.

#OscarsSoWhite

Yeah, I mean, c'mon.

Watch, at CBS News 2 Los Angeles, "#OscarsSoWhite Trends on Social Media as Hollywood Diversity Questions Remain."

Racial Identity Emerges as Main Driver of Voter Choice — Now? Just Now?

This is interesting.

And what's especially interesting is how the MSM establishment talks about how "racial voting" is something new all of a sudden. I guess the topic wasn't all that compelling when 95 percent of blacks voted for Obama in 2008, and 92 percent did so again in 2012. But hey, white working class voters are all in for Donald Trump, so now it's a phenomenon.

At the New York Times (where else?), "Racial Identity, and Its Hostilities, Return to American Politics":

Why do working-class Americans vote as they do?

The question has long bedeviled analysts on the left, troubled that people who would largely benefit from a more robust government seem so often to vote for right-leaning politicians eager to cut federal programs to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

The unusual Republican presidential primary, evolving from one surprise to the next, has revived the debate, but with an important racial coda. As Donald Trump and Ted Cruz surge in the polls, buoyed by the enthusiastic support of angry white men, they raise a narrower question: What’s going on with working-class whites?

Though subtle, this variation reflects an important shift in American politics: Perhaps even more than economic status, racial, ethnic and cultural identity is becoming a main driver of political choice.

It suggests that the battle over the purpose and configuration of the American government — what it’s for, who it serves — may become more openly about “us” versus “them,” along ethnic lines.

Consider the Trump phenomenon. While polls find that he also leads the Republican pack among women and higher-income voters, by far his most solid support comes from less educated, lower-income white men, according to a Pew Research Center analysis conducted in October.

Donald Trump is backed by 43 percent of Republicans with at most a high school education, but only 28 percent of those with bachelor degrees and 21 percent of those with some graduate school, according to an analysis of the most recent New York Times/CBS poll.

Similarly, a Quinnipiac University poll last month found that Hillary Clinton would readily beat Mr. Trump in a general election among college-educated voters, while Mr. Trump would eke out victory among those without a college degree. This is also true of the other angry Republican at the top of the list, Senator Ted Cruz.

Their supporters are overwhelmingly white. White non-Hispanics are the only ethnic group that leans Republican, according to a study of party affiliation by the Pew center. White men who have not completed college favor the G.O.P. over the Democratic Party by 54 to 33 percent.

President Obama and Bernie Sanders have speculated that frustration over lost jobs and stagnant wages can explain much of the blue-collar support for Mr. Trump and conservative populists more generally.

The explanation, however, is not quite satisfactory. As Matthew Yglesias at Vox suggests, many white Americans are most likely drawn to Mr. Trump’s xenophobic, anti-immigrant message because they agree with it...

Well, dang, if Matthew Yglesias says that white working class voters are drawn to "Trump's xenophobic, anti-immigrant message," then that's a freakin' explanatory law of groundbreaking scholarly importance. Give that man an award!

Keep reading, FWIW.

(Oh, and keep in mind the notion of voters segregating themselves into cultural and ideological tribes isn't really new. It's been going on throughout the Obama interregnum [at least], and started with the aforementioned black racial voting for Obama. It's just news when the white oppressor class gets its collective nostrils bent out of their proper alignment.)

What the 'Hunger Games' Movies Say About Feminism — and War

At the Los Angeles Times, "The Katniss Factor":

Throughout the new "Hunger Games" movie, the fourth and final in the dystopian series, heroine Katniss Everdeen's name is intoned with grave sincerity. The manipulative President Snow whispers it, as one does of a worthy rival; her battle partner and occasional romantic interest Gale Hawthorne utters it to suggest a noble comrade.

But the most telling invocation comes early in the film. "It's Katniss," belts out Peeta Mellark, her other battle partner and romantic interest, compromised and angry as he lies in a hospital bed. "It's [all] because of Katniss."

Much has indeed happened thanks to Katniss, a name you couldn't dream up if you tried and now can't imagine not existing. The character has become a kind of cultural shorthand — an archetype, someone who has deepened our understanding of armed conflicts and paved the way for a political movement. And that's just off the screen.

As the Lionsgate franchise winds down with this week's release of "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 2," the film and its lead character reside in a far different world than the one in which they began. And many of those differences came because of "The Hunger Games" films.

There is, of course, the money. The franchise that started with novelist Suzanne Collins and was largely directed by Francis Lawrence has taken in $2.3 billion globally, with more on the way. Every year since 2012, at least 35 million tickets have been bought in the United States to a new "Hunger Games" movie. More Americans on average have come out to see Katniss in a given film than they have Harry Potter.

But the effects go beyond sheer popularity. As played by Jennifer Lawrence, Katniss, with her bow and arrow, has inspired a generation to lift up their weapons, both literally (the surge in archery lessons) and otherwise. She is often unsmiling, efficient and "male-like," by the chestnutty Hollywood definition, in which female characters are rarely foremost and even less frequently autonomous.

Before "Hunger Games," Hollywood somehow couldn't conceive of a fully formed, villain-thwacking heroine in a top-tier franchise. Sure, some swings had been taken. But they were exceptions — pre-made stars in one-offs (Angelina Jolie in "Salt" or "Wanted") or one-dimensional types in B-movie serials (Milla Jovovich's "Resident Evil" or Kate Beckinsale's "Underworld").

Katniss, on the other hand, was, almost from the start, confident but complicated, bold but human. "She's just so relatable and she's not a superhero — she feels real, she feels lost, she feels reluctant," said director Francis Lawrence. "She doesn't want to be a leader, she doesn't want to be part of a rebellion."

If the character was sometimes caught in a love triangle, a Bridget Jones touch that doesn't exactly scream postfeminist consciousness, she spent much of the rest of the time knocking away at glass ceilings, the Hollywood lady hero whose power comes from thoughts and actions more than sexuality...

Still more.

Anthropology 101 — 'Cultural Diversity' — Replaces American History Requirement at Sacramento State

No joke.

Students at Sacramento State can satisfy their U.S. history requirement by taking Anthropology 101 — "Cultural Diversity."

At Blazing Cat Fur, "California State University Approves U.S. “History” Course That Teaches No History."

The Left's Diversity Ideology Destroying Higher Education

Here's Heather Mac Donald, whose major case study is the University of California. The discussion of U.C. San Diego's diversity bureaucracy is particularly astounding.

Via Prager University:

Martese Johnson Arrest

Pretty soon you won't be able to arrest a black man in America. Political correctness will demand a universal pre-amnesty from the consequences of any and all forms of black thug behavior.

At BuzzFeed, "UVA Student Bloodied During Arrest By State Liquor Agents; Governor Orders Investigation."

Court records show Johnson was arrested on two misdemeanor charges of obstructing justice without force, and public swearing and intoxication. He is expected to appear in court next week.

And at the Daily Cavalier, "State, University, community responses to Martese Johnson's arrest." (Via Memeorandum.)

Why Do Leftists Hate Asian-Americans?

Well, I posted on this last week or so, "Leftist Racial Bias Against Asian-Americans in College Admissions."

And now here comes Michael Walsh, at Pajamas, sounding the tocsin on the left's despicable racism. See, "Why Do Democrats Hate Asian-Americans? Because They’re Smart and Successful":

This piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times recently, and it deserves a lot more notice from conservatives than it’s received so far. It’s not that it doesn’t tell us things we didn’t already know — it’s that the Left is so blatant about its prejudices, and so determined to tear down any semblance of meritocracy regarding college admissions. And, mostly, it reminds us that Asian-Americans need to recognize who their enemies are...

Leftist Racial Bias Against Asian-Americans in College Admissions

At LAT, "For Asian Americans, a changing landscape on college admissions":

In a windowless classroom at an Arcadia tutoring center, parents crammed into child-sized desks and dug through their pockets and purses for pens as Ann Lee launches a PowerPoint presentation.

Her primer on college admissions begins with the basics: application deadlines, the relative virtues of the SAT versus the ACT and how many Advanced Placement tests to take.

Then she eases into a potentially incendiary topic — one that many counselors like her have learned they cannot avoid.

“Let's talk about Asians,” she says.

Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth. She points to the first column.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.

She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.

“Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?

College admission season ignites deep anxieties for Asian American families, who spend more than any other demographic on education. At elite universities across the U.S., Asian Americans form a larger share of the student body than they do of the population as a whole. And increasingly they have turned against affirmative action policies that could alter those ratios, and accuse admissions committees of discriminating against Asian American applicants.

That perspective has pitted them against advocates for diversity: More college berths for Asian American students mean fewer for black and Latino students, who are statistically underrepresented at top universities.

But in the San Gabriel Valley's hyper-competitive ethnic Asian communities, arguments for diversity can sometimes fall on deaf ears. For immigrant parents raised in Asia's all-or-nothing test cultures, a good education is not just a measure of success — it's a matter of survival. They see academic achievement as a moral virtue, and families organize their lives around their child's education, moving to the best school districts and paying for tutoring and tennis lessons. An acceptance letter from a prestigious college is often the only acceptable return on an investment that stretches over decades.

Lee is the co-founder of HS2 Academy, a college prep business that assumes that racial bias is a fact of college admissions and counsels students accordingly. At 10 centers across the state, the academy's counselors teach countermeasures to Asian American applicants. The goal, Lee says, is to help prospective college students avoid coming off like another “cookie-cutter Asian.”

“Everyone is in orchestra and plays piano,” Lee says. “Everyone plays tennis. Everyone wants to be a doctor, and write about immigrating to America. You can't get in with these cliche applications.”

Like a lot of students at Arcadia High School, Yue Liang plans to apply to University of California campuses and major in engineering — or if her mother wins that argument, pre-med. She excels at math, takes multiple AP courses and volunteers, as does nearly everyone she knows.

Being of Asian descent, the junior says, is “a disadvantage.” The problem, she says, is in the numbers.

Asian families flock to the San Gabriel Valley's school districts because they have some of the highest Academic Performance Index scores in the state. But with hundreds of top-performing students at each high school, focusing on a small set of elite institutions, it's easy to get lost in the crowd.

Of the school's 4,000 students, nearly 3,000 are of Asian descent, and like Yue are willing to do whatever it takes to gain entrance to a prestigious university. They will study until they can't remember how to have fun and stuff their schedules with extracurriculars. But there's an important part of their college applications that they can't improve as easily as an SAT score: their ethnicity.

In the San Gabriel Valley, where aspirationally named tutoring centers such as Little Harvard and Ivy League cluster within walking distance of high schools, many of them priced more cheaply than a baby-sitter, it didn't take long for some centers to respond to students' and parents' fears of being edged out of a top school because of some intangible missing quality.

Helping Asian American students, many of whom lead similar lives, requires the embrace of some stereotypes, says Crystal Zell, HS2's assistant director of counseling. They are good at math and bad at writing and aspire to be doctors, engineers or bankers, according to the cliches. She works with her students to identify what's unique about them — and most of the time, that's not their career ambitions or their ethnicity.

“Everyone comes in wanting the same thing,” Zell said. “But that's because they don't know about anything else.”

More.

This is kinda depressing, and doubly so in that the discrimination is so widespread. And remember, this is left-wing collectivist discrimination through radical left-wing affirmative action social engineering. That is, left-wing Democrat Party racism.

Disgusting. Sickening. But completely representative of the American left's monstrous rape of basic decency.

RELATED: At the Wall Street Journal, "Is Admissions Bar Higher for Asians at Elite Schools? School Standards Are Probed Even as Enrollment Increases; A Bias Claim at Princeton":

Princeton, where Asian-Americans constitute about 13% of the student body, faces such a challenge. A spokesman for the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights said it is investigating a complaint filed by Jian Li, now a 17-year-old freshman at Yale University. Despite racking up the maximum 2400 score on the SAT and 2390 -- 10 points below the ceiling -- on SAT2 subject tests in physics, chemistry and calculus, Mr. Li was spurned by three Ivy League universities, Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Office for Civil Rights initially rejected Mr. Li's complaint due to "insufficient" evidence. Mr. Li appealed, citing a white high-school classmate admitted to Princeton despite lower test scores and grades. The office notified him late last month that it would look into the case.

His complaint seeks to suspend federal financial assistance to Princeton until the university "discontinues discrimination against Asian-Americans in all forms by eliminating race preferences, legacy preferences, and athlete preferences." Legacy preference is the edge most elite colleges, including Princeton, give to alumni children. The Office for Civil Rights has the power to terminate such financial aid but usually works with colleges to resolve cases rather than taking enforcement action.

Mr. Li, who emigrated to the U.S. from China as a 4-year-old and graduated from a public high school in Livingston, N.J., said he hopes his action will set a precedent for other Asian-American students. He wants to "send a message to the admissions committee to be more cognizant of possible bias, and that the way they're conducting admissions is not really equitable," he said.

Princeton spokeswoman Cass Cliatt said the university is aware of the complaint and will provide the Office for Civil Rights with information it has requested. Princeton has said in the past that it considers applicants as individuals and doesn't discriminate against Asian-Americans.

When elite colleges began practicing affirmative action in the late 1960s and 1970s, they gave an admissions boost to Asian-American applicants as well as blacks and Hispanics. As the percentage of Asian-Americans in elite schools quickly overtook their slice of the U.S. population, many colleges stopped giving them preference -- and in some cases may have leaned the other way.

In 1990, a federal investigation concluded that Harvard University admitted Asian-American applicants at a lower rate than white students despite the Asians' slightly stronger test scores and grades. Federal investigators also found that Harvard admissions staff had stereotyped Asian-American candidates as quiet, shy and oriented toward math and science. The government didn't bring charges because it concluded it was Harvard's preferences for athletes and alumni children -- few of whom were Asian -- that accounted for the admissions gap.

The University of California came under similar scrutiny at about the same time...

More.

San Francisco Racial Segregation Surging as Affluent Parents Opt for 'School Choice'

Affluent leftists.

Maybe they'll self-segregate so hard that they get naturally selected out of the population due to a catastrophic infectious disease epidemic.

Seriously. Hispanic students are increasingly marginalized in the schools.

At the San Francisco Public Press, "As Parents Get More Choice, S.F. Schools Resegregate":

San Francisco faces a challenge: promoting educational options without undermining classroom diversity.

San Francisco faces a challenge: promoting educational options without undermining classroom diversity

Each January, parents across San Francisco rank their preferences for public schools. By June, most get their children into their first choices, and almost three-quarters get one of their choices.

A majority of families may be satisfied with the outcome, but the student assignment system is failing to meet its No. 1 goal, which the San Francisco Unified School District has struggled to achieve since the 1960s: classroom diversity.

Since 2010, the year before the current policy went into effect, the number of San Francisco’s 115 public schools dominated by one race has climbed significantly. Six in 10 have simple majorities of one racial group. In almost one-fourth, 60 percent or more of the students belong to one racial group, which administrators say makes them “racially isolated.” That described 28 schools in 2013–2014, up from 23 in 2010–2011, according to the district.

But the San Francisco Public Press has found the problem may be even more stark: If Asian and Filipino students are counted together — the standard used by the Census — together the number of racially isolated schools in the last school year rose to 39.

The drive toward racial isolation in the district parallels a larger trend in the city: With many wealthier families opting for private alternatives, the public school system is becoming racially and economically isolated from the city as a whole.

Why does it matter whether schools are diverse? One reason is academic performance. Recent studies from Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley, show that many students do much better on tests when placed in integrated classrooms, and that all kids are much less likely to grow up with racial stereotypes and prejudices. Far from being opposed to each other, excellence and diversity go hand in hand.

How did this resegregation of schools happen in a city where almost everyone from district leaders to parents supports the ideal of diversity?

Dramatic income inequality, shifting demographics, rising housing costs and the proliferation of language programs are fueling the trend. But the biggest culprit, say outside researchers and local education leaders, is the feature that defines the student assignment system: school choice.

The district provides parents with a dizzying amount of information about the schools. The application process requires time, language skills and access to technology — advantages that often come with education and financial resources. “Choice is inherently inequitable,” San Francisco Board of Education member Sandra Fewer said at a December meeting on student assignment. “If you don’t have resources, you don’t have choice.”

Orla O’Keeffe, the district’s policy director, said affluent, educated parents compete for the small number of seats at the highest-performing schools. Children from poor and working-class families, disproportionately black and Latino, often end up in underperforming schools.

The district currently has few tools to address the problem. “If you’ve got racially isolated choice patterns, then your capacity to create diversity using a choice mechanism is constrained,” O’Keeffe said. “There’s none of that in our system. It’s all about what families want.”

The choice system tries to make the schools diverse by giving more preference to students who live in neighborhoods with low average test scores, a proxy for measuring poverty. But some Board of Education members are acknowledging that mechanisms intended to promote diversity are flawed.

“The story of our efforts at student assignment is the story of unintended consequences,” said Rachel Norton, a board member since 2009. “In some ways, it’s a perfect mismatch of intent and results.”...

Hey leftists!

Diversity is great, right? As long as you're not the ones diversifying. Yippee!!