User:Mrkena1/sandbox

[Journalists]

“Too Asian”, re-titled “The Enrolment Controversy” was an article published in 2010 edition of the MacLean's Guide to Canadian Universities. The article was publicly criticized and condemned by various community organizations, universities   and levels of government as an example of anti-Asian racism. To date, MacLean's magazine and its parent company, Rogers Communications has not offered an apology for the article, as called for by the multiple groups and individuals offended by its content.

Article's Content and Criticism
The article begins by introducing Alexandra and Rachel, two recently graduated White students from Havergal College, an elite private school in Toronto's suburbs. The authors of the piece explain that the two students have made a choice commonly made by White students: opting to not attend a university with the reputation of being “too Asian”. The term, the authors continue to explain, indicates a university that is intellectually rigorous with and an unbalanced campus climate, brought upon by the presence of academically focused Asian students. The article then attempts to provide a debate about the role of race and culture on Canadian university campuses, with reference to conversations about race and the admissions process of American universities.

[Journalists]

Response to the article was immediate, widespread and unfavourable. Critics – ranging from journalist bloggers  to academics   – decried the articles for being racist and reductive. The article was criticized for recycling stereotypes of Asians as invading foreigners, with the intent of overthrowing white Canadians from power. Further criticism followed from the fact that the article depicted Asians as a homogeneous and undifferentiated group, without attention to the fact that people from various groups can be classified as Asian. Another commentator argued that the article unfairly and inaccurately perpetuated the myth that universities functioned as pure meritocracies, without taking into account that minorities have to overcome social hurdles, such as racial discrimination and prejudice. It was also argued that the article justified the idea that universities were the rightful place of Whites, without explicitly condemning (and therefore indirectly condoning) the attitudes of Alexandra and Rachel.

[Climate of Fear – Trent References]

Protest and Government Action
Coupled with the critiques of the piece was activism and action from grassroots, academic and governmental sectors. The activism protesting the piece manifested in a number of different forms, ranging from humorous (but critical) videos, to community web pages and gatherings. A coalition comprised of various organizations composed and submitted an open letter calling for an end to anti-Asian racism for those responsible for the piece. Universities across the nation held a series of educational events to debate the article and its implications. http://www.uc.utoronto.ca/component/option,com_events/task,view_detail/agid,424/year,2011/month,2/day,15/Itemid,163/catids,65/

The cities of Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto, Markham and Richmond Hill successively passed motions condemning the article and calling for those responsible for the article to issue a public apology. Olivia Chow, a Member of Parliament and member of the New Democratic Party, put forth a motion in the House of Commons calling for the censure of MacLean's. Senator Vivienne Poy, former Chancellor Emerita of the University of Toronto, argued that the offensive and inflammatory content of the piece makes the magazine unsuitable as a beneficiary of the Canadian government's periodical fund, which annually subsidizes the magazine's publication with $1.8 million dollars of federal funding.

MacLean's Response and Aftermath
[Negotiations w/CCNC]

No apology has been offered by either MacLean's or Rogers Communications. The magazine instead issued a clarification about the piece's content, changed the article's title, and issued a additional statement with the online version of the piece, apologizing for the fact that some of the content could be interpreted as offensive. The magazine furthered offered it does not advocate race as a criteria in university admissions, and commended Asians in Canada for succeeding in universities on the basis of merit. Conservative pundits sided with the magazine, stating that it initiated an important conversation and the magazine, rather than those aggrieved, deserved an apology.

In reply, Professor Henry Yu of the University of British Columbia labelled MacLean's actions as a non-apology. that did not acknowledge its wrongdoing. Veteran journalist and author Jeet Heer articulated that, in dealing with the ordeal in the way that it did, both MacLean's and its supporters reflected Canada's inability to constructively talk about the reality of racism. Heer further noted that those that argued in favor of the article evaded acknowledging that it was evocative of racist stereotypes. The Journalism Review of King's College at Dalhouise University questioned the journalistic ethics of publishing such an article. [R]

Kenneth Whyte, then Publisher of MacLean's, has since been promoted as the Head of Rogers' Publications. Nicholas Kohler, one of the authors of the article, remains a journalist at the magazine. Stefanie Findlay, the second author and then an intern with publication, is now employed by as a one year intern with the Toronto Star. The decision to hire Findlay by the Star was criticized by some, prompting doubt as to whether or not the Star was sincere in issuing an apology for a similar themed and timed article. Havergal College, the school that Alexandra and Rachel supposedly attended, publicly stated that MacLean's never confirmed that the two students attended the school.

References: