The really damning part, as several of us have noticed, is not so much the article as the lame and dishonest defense of it mounted by the editors.

What the apologists for racist utterance will not, cannot talk about is the history of vicious anti-Chinese racism in the United States, and the history of racist exclusion by institutions like Princeton. I don’t know whether the charge that Princeton is currently discriminating against East Asians is valid. But it’s not an unreasonable hypothesis, and the charge is that exclusion works through stereotypes of East Asians as humorless grinds, so that the admissions officer looks at the file and says yeah, top scores and grades, but not well-rounded enough. Terms like “well-rounded” and “character” were what were used for decades to exclude Jews from the Ivies. So when undergrads within Princeton respond to the challenge precisely by playing up the stereotype of a kind of person who should not be admitted despite their enormous hard work because you know, old boy, they’re just a little too keen and not really like us, it’s pretty clear what’s going on.

Folks from previously-excluded groups are not going to get into top colleges like Princeton because they’re old money and their Dad was an alum and they went to the right prep school and have that preppy polish. They’re going to get in through really hard academic work. And to have that, in particular, mocked tells you a lot about what’s going on.

1. Asians, when taken in an American context, usually refers to East Asians.
2. The article itself was written by East Asian students. Not that that makes it less offensive, but it certainly helps put a stop to the ridiculous racism charges being flung around.
3. The newspaper acknowledges that the piece was badly done and everyone on campus recognizes the fact that there was no racist or malicious intent driving the piece.
4. The fact that the current and next editor in chief happen to be South Asian has absolutely nothing to do with the conception or publication of the piece. There are many other people on staff and it just so happens that the editor takes the fall for every else because of his post.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where people read something on the internet, don’t bother to get the full facts and proceed to make it out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. Maybe the article wasn’t funny, but presuming that you know the intentions of the people writing it and calling them racist is also pretty offensive, not to mention unintelligent.

no one’s saying an indian person can’t make fun of an east asian person. i may not find him funny all the time, but russel peters manages to do just that, without a hint of racism and with some charm to boot. the difference is that the princetonians fall back on lame, negative stereotypes and pin a mocking accent onto someone who is asian american and probably doesn’t have an accent at all. for sethi to claim that he’s part of the asian club so it’s okay for him to do it, is one of the most offensive parts of this. one would think he would understand, or perhaps he’s never had an apu accent thrown at him, or someone ask him to pump his gas, or wonder why he smelled.

No, the article wasn’t funny at all, and I seriously doubt it was meant in a satirical fashion.

However, I still don’t think we should attack the Ivy League or any particular institution over it. If UCLA published a similar article, we wouldn’t blame “Pac 10 twerps” or “UC twerps.” We’re fooling ourselves if we blame this ongoing problem on social elitism or privilege. The real problem isn’t localized…it’s a national phenomenon that deserves attention in that context.

No the audience laugh at the misogany and anti-semite and anti-every-decent-western-thing behavior by the charactor. Which proves my point, that audiences love it because it reinforces their superiority.