I'm Asian, and I was not bothered at all when I read your April Fools article. I think people here tend to be sensitive on this issue and over interpret anything that has to do with race. Isn't diversity all about acceptance? It is kind of sad that whenever such a "controversial" thing happens, a lot of finger-pointing and apologies have to be made. There ARE people out there who really believe in those stereotypes, but it mostly has to do with the way we are brought up. I have friends who are not ethnic Asian, but because of the way they were brought up in Asia, they seem to fit more of the Asian mold.

I've heard good things about the generally accepting atmosphere at Cornell, and I hope that I won't be disappointed when I become a freshman next year. :)

To the comment above

And people say that Asians are too soft.

diversity is not at all about acceptance, though it is usually portrayed that way. it is about holding the many issues of race, class, gender, orientation, religion, nationality, etc. at hand and seeking to learn about these dimensions. in addition, by learning about each other's concerns, we can work on improving one another's well-being. by learning, i don't mean passively sitting in a classroom or saying yes to everything. it can be about raising controversial questions and possibly making each other uncomfortable. if that's the only way to have honest dialogue, so be it.

people were NOT being overly sensitive about evan's april fool's piece. satire is about being tongue-in-cheek with people/attitudes that go unquestioned. they are usually the norm and the majority, which is why those opinions are usually accepted and acceptable. satire does not poke fun at people who already lack voices and fair representation. i cannot see how anyone can laugh at the plight of underrepresented and underserved populations, like people of color, women, or the LGBTQ community.

i'm glad you decided to comment on this piece. i recommend that you read the 2004 AAATF report from beginning to end (http://www.gannett.cornell.edu/downloads/campusIniatives/mentalhealth/AA...), among other pieces of literature that would broaden your perspectives. the report is long, but i guarantee that this report will be constantly referred to during your time at cornell.

it's too bad that you decided not to reveal your name, but i encourage you to contact me (ch455@cornell.edu) if you want to discuss this further.

Some people get their jollies playing video games. Some people get their jollies singing karaoke. Some people get their jollies playing sports.

Some people get their jollies engaging in moral one-upsmanship. These types of people include religious zealots that hold others to standards that they do not hold themselves, as well as adherents of the cult of political correctness.

Both groups annoy me because they echo moral sentiments that I myself hold, but they apply their moral evaluation without regard for context, and spend far too much time manufacturing outrage over truly trivial incidents. However, the latter group is far more annoying because they are especially pervasive in the media and academia, both of which provide a bully pulpit for their views that the former group lacks.

While I (and probably many other people) would be outraged by malicious acts perpetrated due to obviously racist intentions, I don't think tasteless racial humor is worth getting upset over, since different people do have a different sense of humor. That said, I really don't think your April Fool's joke was in good taste - making fun of suicide tends not to be. I'd think less of you for writing such drivel, but I wouldn't your actions qualify for genuine moral outrage.

But people who enjoy self-aggrandizement by whining about Oppression, Marginalization and Gentrification will seize upon any opportunity, no matter how trivial, that allows them to browbeat and castigate other people. What motivates such people to comment upon your article is not that you did something horrible in writing it, but that it gives them an opportunity to demonstrate their superior moral sensibilities.

I understand your frustration with PC-ness, but this isn't even relevant to the issue. The entire article was not about the author regretting his article because it was not politically correct, but because he realizes how it hurt an entire community and the efforts behind the community center itself.

You're also making assumptions yourself, assuming that activist efforts are comparable to religious zealots. You're also assuming that moral convictions are at the center of all these efforts. When Asian/Asian-American activists are arguing for more university resources and help in building a better community, it's not about aggrandizement or trying to prevent everyone from criticizing Asians/Asian-Americans. You're assuming that they get off on sounding important and fighting for trivial causes. Have you ever considered that they actually are passionate about building a community that they can belong to? We all pick and choose our battles, whether it is environmentalism or charity, so it doesn't make any sense to play the oppression game and minimize other people's causes that you don't necessarily support.

And if it takes an overtly racist act to make you realize that racism exists and that it should be addressed, don't wait for it because racism nowadays is much more subtle and inherent. The age of political correctness is over, but it doesn't mean that "trivial" racist humor is still justified.

also, there are still mad hate crimes against asians and other people of color all across america. they're not publicized very much either. or they're downplayed by authorities as "random acts of violence."

Self-proclaimed community activists also make a gratuitous assumption - that they are speaking for the entire ethnic community, rather than merely for those holding the same opinion. I am an Asian-American graduate of Cornell who was not hurt by the author's comments - therefore, your claim that the author has "hurt the entire community" is false. You have come to a different conclusion, and I have nothing against that fact, but for you to claim to speak for the entire ethnic community, rather than merely those holding your position, is self-aggrandizing overreach.

I disagree with your claim that my commentary about the motives of those levelling excessively harsh criticism of the article is irrelevent to discussion about the entire incident. While the author expresses remorse for writing his article, due to the activist criticism that it damaged the community, I argue that the activists do not accurately represent the post's effect on who they claim to represent, and this is due to activists having a psychological incentive to play up these types of incidents. Since I call into question the accuracy of a counter-argument involving this incident, my commentary is relevant.

I don't see that much of a difference between zealous Asian-American activists and zealous religious activists. Both groups can be motivated to build a community, both groups can derive motivation from moral imperatives (fighting racism in the former case, following the dictates of their faith in the latter). And it is likely that both groups will try to proselytize their beliefs. As I had mentioned in my previous post, it is not really the content of those beliefs that annoys me as the zealous and categorical evaluation of all circumstances in respect to those beliefs, without regard to context or alternative explanations.

How do you know that all the crimes you believe were motivated by ethnic hatred were actually primarily motivated by ethnic hatred, rather than other considerations (such as interpersonal strife, the perpetrator looking for monetary gain and the victim being vulnerable, etc.)?