Tag: Harvard

The comfort women controversy is one of these issues where facts do not matter, how people feel about the topic is what matters:

Korean students at Harvard University have strongly criticized a professor over his controversial claim that Japan’s wartime sexual slavery was actually voluntary prostitution, demanding its immediate withdrawal and his official apology to victims.

Harvard Korean Society made the demand in a statement on its website after Harvard Law School Japanese legal studies professor J. Mark Ramseyer caused controversy with his recently published paper titled “Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War.”

“It is a wrong conclusion based on grounds very biased and lacking trustworthiness,” the statement said. “Harvard Korean Society demands Prof. Ramseyer’s official apology and immediate withdrawal of the paper.”

“The issue of comfort women is an international inhumane act, and his academic view which justifies and negates the act is an immoral and shameless view,” it added.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link.

I have not read Professor Ramseyer’s paper yet because it is behind a pay wall. Maybe it is out of line, but I would not be surprised if it has similar conclusions to what Sejong University Professor Park Yu-ha wrote a few years ago about the comfort women issue:

“Park believes that Japan did not recruit comfort women in Korea, which was part of Japan from Tokyo’s perspective, in quite the same way that it did on the front lines and in occupied areas, such as in the Philippines. In those areas, records show that Japanese soldiers were directly involved in the forcible and violent taking away of comfort women. ‘Many of the Korean comfort women were apparently recruited while being cheated by agents of prostitution, some of whom were Koreans, or being sold by their parents,’ Park said. ‘While some have testified they were forcibly taken away by military personnel, I suppose that such cases, if there were any, were exceptional.’

She was of course arrested for writing such a book. The Korean public likes to think that all the comfort women were girls sleeping in bed and kidnapped by evil Japanese soldiers while the Japanese rightists like to think they were all willing prostitutes.  Both historical narratives are untrue if one really looks at the history.

What Professor Park writes about is the same historical narrative that Sarah Soh wrote about in her book “The Comfort Women“.  In the book Soh provides documented evidence that most of the Korean women put into the comfort women system were sold by Korean brokers.  The actual kidnapping of Korean women by Japanese soldiers would be a very rare occurrence when the broker system made so many of these women readily available.  This does not absolve the Imperial Japanese from responsibility since they ran the comfort woman system that provided the demand for the Korean brokers to meet.  To make even worse is that many of these girls were teenagers when sold into prostitution.  I see no way that a young teenager should be considered a willing prostitute.  Especially when many girls were sold by their families into prostitution for money due to the extreme poverty.  This was actually a practice that was going on well into the US military era in South Korea.

It is pretty clear that the comfort women issue is not black and white, but ultimately the Imperial Japanese government was responsible for the actions of the Korean brokers that supplied the majority of the Korean girls that were underage.  There is no need to create a false narrative of what happened to the comfort women when the truth is bad enough.

I have long been following this lawsuit here at the ROK Drop and now the lawsuit has forced Harvard to release how they select their applicants.  The way the admissions process is set up it makes it harder for Asian-Americans to be accepted to the prestigious university:

In an intense legal battle over the role of race in Harvard University’s admissions policies, a group that is suing the school says Harvard lowers the rankings of Asian-American applicants in a way that is unconstitutional.

Harvard says that its admissions process is legal — and it notes that the plaintiff group, the Students for Fair Admissions, is backed by the same activist who previously challenged the University of Texas’ affirmative action policy.

The SFFA says Harvard uses “racial balancing” as part of its formula for admitting students and that the practice is illegal. In response, Harvard says the group is misinterpreting data that the highly competitive school shared about how it chooses students.

Citing a 2013 analysis by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, the SFFA said in a federal court filing on Friday that if academics were the only criterion, Asian-American students would have made up more than 43 percent of students who were admitted, rather than the actual 18.7 percent.

Even if other criteria — such as legacy students, athletic recruiting and extracurricular and personal attributes — are included, the plaintiffs say, the number of Asian-Americans at Harvard would still have risen to more than 26 percent.

Saying that the admission rate for whites outpaced that of Asian-Americans over a 10-year period — despite outperforming them in only the “personal” ratings — the plaintiffs allege that “being Asian American actually decreases the chances of admissions.”  [NPR]

So how does Harvard justify not admitting Asian-Americans based on their academic performance? By penalizing them for their “personalities”:

Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.

Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.  [New York Times]

I am not sure how an admission personnel can make an accurate determination about someones “courage” or “liability” from an application packet.  I think it is arguable that the personality scores are being used as a way to manipulate the stupid body to reflect what the university wants it to look like.

Could you imagine what the uproar would be if a university for example in the South was using personality scores to limit the number of African-American students?  I do find it interesting that since it is Asian-Americans being affected by Harvard’s policies that the usual race hustlers we see in the spotlight for issues like this are no where to be found.

It will be interesting to see how this federal lawsuit plays out because right now universities are allowed to discriminate against another minority Asian-Americans because they are too smart:

The Education Department on Tuesday dismissed a complaint against Harvard University by some Asian American groups who say the university uses racial quotas to keep out high-scoring Asians.

The complaint was filed in May with the department’s civil rights office by more than 60 Chinese, Indian, Korean and Pakistani groups. Education officials said the complaint was dismissed because similar concerns were the focus of a federal lawsuit.

The complaining groups said they were “very disappointed.”

Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were sued last year by some rejected applicants who want affirmative action policies banned. The Harvard lawsuit also contends the university specifically limits the number of Asian-Americans it admits.

Harvard said its admission policies have been found to be “fully compliant with federal law” and said it “has demonstrated a strong record of recruiting and admitting Asian-American students.  [Korea Times]

Has anyone read this guy’s books and if so is it worth reading?  The Koreans apparently think so:

Political philosopher Michael Sandel is something of a rock star in South Korea, where he has spoken before 15,000 people in a packed amphitheater and thrown out the first pitch at a professional baseball game.

Now, the Harvard University professor can add honorary citizen of Seoul to his list of credentials.

On Friday, Mayor Park Won-soon made it official at a ceremony in which Mr. Sandel spoke before 500 municipal workers on the topic of “Justice, Markets and the Good Society.”

That’s the latest spinoff of an intellectual thread that Mr. Sandel has turned into a popular following, built around his well-known “Justice” undergraduate class at Harvard. The “Justice” class has been broadcast online and on public television and spun out in recent years into a widely-translated best-selling book, as well as a television and radio series.

The Korean translations of his books have been big hits in South Korea, and helped catapult him to celebrity status when he came through town in 2012 for a book tour. [The Wall Street Journal – Korea Real Time]

You can read more at the link.