I begin first with a few of the comments (posted here) to the controversial article in question:
keggy says:
Stupid Chinese self-hater. I propose Yale start capping Chinese-admission rate at 5%, similar to how China caps the birth rate at 1 child. Would he still be at Yale?Y’08 says:
So, this is what Yale gets for sucking up to China… On another note, is it just me, or does this guy eerily resemble Cho Seung-Hui (the VTech killer)?hownowbrowncow says:
Again, 1st-generation Chinese (and those that have not assimilated) need to stick to math, science, and engineering. China + social commentary = disaster. Just saying.Big Red says:
What is funny is that Asian students use the good old foreign student loophole to get in when their English language abilities are not up to par. They also take advantage of liberal entry laws when other groups are turned away or have to live without the benefits of legal residence, i.e, financial aid, poverty programs, etc. Then they take advantage of the American system of education (as well as the economy, infrastructure and creativity) that they are lacking at home. Americans have always been willing to accept Asians just because they seem to be docile and meek and not a threat, neither adding or taking away from our political, cultural and social life. I always thought that it was good that a group of immigrants were given advantages. Now not so much.
The article in question, “U.S. cannibalizes self by enabling immigrants, poor,” is an op-ed piece in the Yale Daily News by Xiaochen Su, a college sophomore. The piece incited the fury of people all across the country, people who fancy themselves more politically conscious and race-sensitive than Mr. Su.
That’s why the Letters to the Editor in response to Su’s article name-called him a racist, even though his original article did not focus on race. Call it my idiocy, but I didn’t realize the article had to do with race until I read an op-ed response to his article referring to Su as a racist.
In fact, the only direct reference to race I found was this: “Statistics show that majority of U.S. population growth comes from immigration and high birth rate among the minorities, while the native Caucasian population is stabilizing.”
Here, Su made a few egregious errors. First, the lack of explanation for how the Caucasian population is “native” meant his arguments stood on conclusory premises. Second, we don’t really have a clue what he defined as “the minorities.” To clump all non-white races into one group would not make any sense and what’s more, he needed to tie that set of contentions in better with his stance on immigration and tax law.
Other than that and the irrelevant fact that I vehemently disagree with his proposal for change, the article was soundly written. He clearly and concisely stated the issue, exposed the flaws with our current approach, and he offered a solution, which was viable and logically presented…unless you disagreed with him politically, like the overwhelming leftist majority of the article’s readership.
This kid is also about 20 years old. He has published many op-ed pieces available online and, from reading those pieces, I recognize Xiaochen Su is a talented writer. He lucidly articulates his thought process and it in no way sounds like he writes scatological rants only to incite. These opinions are well deliberated in his mind before publication. Mr. Su is an intelligent young man contributing his two-cents to our free marketplace of ideas.
Derailing Mr. Su’s tax proposals as one step away from China’s inhumane One Child Policy also bothered me. How ethnocentric of us to believe our way is better than China’s way. Please let us respect the view that the One Child Policy may have been the best thing to ever happen for helping the country’s economy. The backlash against Xiaochen Su showed American arrogance, not American liberalism, at play.
The Letters to the Editor not only lashed out at Su, but also at the Yale Daily News, writing: “shame on not only Mr. Su, but on the News for printing such garbage.”
Ah, a proponent of censorship. That, I would say, is a very communist stance to take.
Moreover, instead of intelligently dissenting to his two-cents, readers responded with comments like:
“stupid b*tch is clearly a chinese spy trying to give us bad ideas.” – T7Stud
“all chinese students are chineses spies, i don’t know why we let them into our universities.” – Rock . . . Rock n Roll Law School
The publication never mentioned Su’s nationality. Deeply embedded stereotypes led us to presume that he was Chinese.
What disturbs me most about these responses are that it actually makes Xiaochen Su seem like the fully compos mentis one of the bunch.
See the blog Power and Politics for another Asian American perspective on the incident. It (justifiably) reproached Mr. Su and focused less on the (equally) reproachable remarks to Su’s article.
