It's articles like this that make white people think "diversity" is just a code word for "anti-white". This article takes complex issues and boils them down to "white people don't want non-whites in their club." While I won't preclude the notion that there is definitely institutional racism to factor into the equation, I wish the author would entertain similar notions concerning other factors for the issues she is talking about, and take into account a bit of context for them as well.

That non-Anglo-Saxon names are still an acceptable point of ridicule underscores the dynamics of whiteness that still pervade our culture.

First of all, "ridicule" is a very strong word for that example, and though a tasteless comment, is it unsurprising that names containing spelling combinations and phonemes uncommon or nonexistent to the language spoken in that country will draw attention. Acting like it was malicious is making mountains out of mole hills.

http://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-Americans-so-bad-at-pronouncing-foreign-names

Hough furthered the pernicious racism that finds fault with any names, languages, and cultures that disrupt the uniformity of whiteness in America. What these examples speak to is our society’s confused, superficial understanding of race and diversity, and how this confusion underscores racial privilege.

Pure nonsense. Most of my white ancestors didn't keep their original names or name their children names from their original countries when they immigrated to the US. From spelling changes to out-right renaming, this is not and has not ever been about stamping out "diversity" or maintaining a white-centered culture. It's been about assimilation, and there is nothing wrong with assimilating.

But real diversity should be less focused on celebrating ethnic difference and more attuned to acknowledging whiteness and the power it holds in institutional spaces.

Ahh, here we go. Not only is assimilating into the culture of your ...

It's articles like this that make white people think "diversity" is just a code word for "anti-white". This article takes complex issues and boils them down to "white people don't want non-whites in their club." While I won't preclude the notion that there is definitely institutional racism to factor into the equation, I wish the author would entertain similar notions concerning other factors for the issues she is talking about, and take into account a bit of context for them as well.

That non-Anglo-Saxon names are still an acceptable point of ridicule underscores the dynamics of whiteness that still pervade our culture.

First of all, "ridicule" is a very strong word for that example, and though a tasteless comment, is it unsurprising that names containing spelling combinations and phonemes uncommon or nonexistent to the language spoken in that country will draw attention. Acting like it was malicious is making mountains out of mole hills.

http://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-Americans-so-bad-at-pronouncing-foreign-names

Hough furthered the pernicious racism that finds fault with any names, languages, and cultures that disrupt the uniformity of whiteness in America. What these examples speak to is our society’s confused, superficial understanding of race and diversity, and how this confusion underscores racial privilege.

Pure nonsense. Most of my white ancestors didn't keep their original names or name their children names from their original countries when they immigrated to the US. From spelling changes to out-right renaming, this is not and has not ever been about stamping out "diversity" or maintaining a white-centered culture. It's been about assimilation, and there is nothing wrong with assimilating.

But real diversity should be less focused on celebrating ethnic difference and more attuned to acknowledging whiteness and the power it holds in institutional spaces.

Ahh, here we go. Not only is assimilating into the culture of your new country wrong, but the majority being "in power" is also wrong. Maybe we should peg representation in all politics, economics, and society strictly on racial demographic data...

In response, Harvard called its admissions procedures “fully lawful” and further noted that the rise from 17.6 percent to more than 21 percent in Asian American students was proof of their strong recruitment of Asian Americans. In other words, if qualified students are being denied admission simply because they are Asian American, it seems that the real issue at hand is that elite universities are primarily concerned with remaining predominantly white.

So meritocracy is evil and racist and a show of institutional white power trying to keep the club white-only until it means less white people would be represented, then it's fantastic and the evil whites are once again trying to keep the club white-only. The double standard here is ridiculous and arbitrary. 21% of the student body is Asian from a population that has less than 6% of people with Asian ancestry. Asians are over represented and whites are underrepresented, with the rest matching their demographics. When she applauds affirmative action it sounds like she is advocating for a system where everyone except whites should be represented by their population demographic.

Real inclusion can only happen when there is a disruption and acknowledgment that universities, like other American institutions, are white spaces invested in maintaining whiteness.

Empty words, the only purpose of which is to create a cute quote and incite. "Disruption" for example needs a bit of explanation. I'm really curious as to the methods such "disruption" would employ. I will acknowledge that universities are primarily white, and nobody should be surprised by that. However, I do wonder where she comes up with the idea that they are "invested in maintaining whiteness." Sadly she abandons this line of thinking to move right on with the train-wreck:

while Asian Americans represent more than a quarter of tech professionals in Silicon Valley, they are dramatically underrepresented among executives.

Again, it must be the white man keeping them down...

Chaudhry says he thinks Americans have an advantage, thanks to the way they're brought up with an emphasis on all-around development, including sports and socializing rather than just academics. In a venture-capital world, where people who are fit and charismatic get more funding, that is vital. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/17/407478606/often...-ceos-challenges-asian-americans-face-in-tech

Am I saying that race is not a factor in modern US society? No. I am saying that articles like this are a really great way to convert people into reactionaries. Blame them for all your problems and then point out that they won't be the majority in a handful of decades. In conclusion I have finally discovered the character limit, and so I'll end by sayi