thirdfloor

Peggy McIntosh's essay raises a lot of insightful observations both about race and gender dynamics. She does a lot to elucidate the knee-jerk response against assertions of male or white dominance, naturally, no one wants to believe they are in a position that consciously or unconsciously dominates and subjugates another person. She also draws out the difference between personal and institutional racism. A person in a position of white privilege might not be personally racist, but might also enjoy the benefits of institutional racism. It's an important distinction, and it helps stop the knee-jerk response.

An example of male privilege might be the ability to assume that women who work hard to further their career arrived where they are by "skating by on their looks." White privilege might be akin to assuming a black lawyer, who worked hard to further his/her career got where s/he was by "skating by on [race]" during law school. Achivement gap studies have shown that environment and expectations have an extremely concrete effect on performance, and that minorities of any description often suffer under a system that doesn't adequately address their situation. In another post on this forum, a female student described how her teacher [falsely] attributed her science work to her boyfriend's help.

It's hard to argue that in the workplace and in academia, to an extent, minorities function in an infranstructure that's not especially geared to support them. McIntosh's point is that so much of white privilege and male privilege are unconscious--they don't reflect so much on the person in the position, but on the society that fosters the environment. Colleges are diversifying to try and build more inclusive and aware communities, and to try and eradicate some complacency from the system.

Easy

So are you saying the office eye-candy is a big bad myth? Of course there are pretty girls who work hard to get where they are, but it doesn't mean that there aren't a boatload of girls that get hired for being hot in careers that others would have to work much harder or be much more qualified for. Not mentioning the myriad of jobs that depend almost exclusively on looks--dancers, cheerleaders, waitresses and bartenders in certain venues, hostesses, strippers, etc. etc.

As a personal anecdote, my ex-girlfriend had Wall Street guys bending over backwards to help her out with connections and the like after only having met her once in person; no resume or nothing. Our school was nowhere near New York and certainly not a hotbed for Wall Street activity. She worked hard and was smart, but there's no way a girl of markedly lesser attractiveness would have guys tripping over themselves to help her out.

ASC

"So are you saying the office eye-candy is a big bad myth? Of course there are pretty girls who work hard to get where they are, but it doesn't mean that there aren't a boatload of girls that get hired for being hot in careers that others would have to work much harder or be much more qualified for."

There are outliers in everything....

Bourne

To assume from this very stupid and inane example that diversity is not necessary is the stuff idiocy is made of.

Diversity in the form of AA may be outdated but there are many types of diversity. Many Many types. To pass judgment on them all...

thirdfloor

I'm just saying that in many arenas, female professionals have to work much harder to establish themselves and their credentials as legitimate, and even after securing a position, are often dismissed as being somehow lesser than their male counterparts, something I think parallels the experiences of many minorities in the American workplace as well.

People are hired due to aesthetic qualities, but I don't know if I would say it's as widespread as you do. Of course, we've had different experiences, so you may very well have seen more of it than I have. I think it relates to the double standard of male/female behavior: a man might not be discredited or thought worse of for hiring an underqualified female secretary, but a woman would almost certainly face more scrutiny for hiring a boy-toy receptionist or something.

It's a tricky web to untangle, as I think McIntosh states very eloquently. For every man or woman trying to work against the system, there's another willingly ready to exploit it, either by continuing to hire underqualified candidates, or by winning a position knowing that they're an underqualified candidate.

blahfishcakes

The question in the original post wouldn't surprise me. I've been asked to give my perspective as a black person on affirmative action (and I'm mixed and consider myself black AND white, not black). People in general can be pretty racially insensitive, so it's really no surprise. I'd say I've had, oh, 4567894567 complete strangers grab my hair when I wear it naturally, ask what am, ask who my "people" are, or just randomly start speaking in Spanish to me.

I really don't think I'd be able to offer a different insight on literature because of my race, and I don't like that assumption either.

Bourne

It's just a bad example. A horrible one.

That's not encouraging diversity at all. It's encouraging ignorance and actually, one could call that segregation.

Btw, it's kinda funny how you guys named then Jamal and Deshaun.

Easy

It could also be because men value women's looks a lot more than vice versa. Or a combination of both.

Also, that's the problem with affirmative action. If you're going to sacrifice candidates of demographic A to hire/accept candidates of demographic B, of course the qualifications of demographic B will be questioned, and I think such a questioning is quite legitimate.

dontno

OK maybe I wasn't clear enough about the intention of the example I gave. First off, this hasn't actually happened in my presence. I came up with it as an illustrative example of diversity. Second, let me briefly explain what the example was intended to demonstrate.

Colleges engage in affirmative actions admissions. They clearly lower the standard for blacks and hispanics. Now one could argue that this is justified given the economic background of these applicants. Fine, that's not the point. Then many continue on to say, "Well it's ok that we lower the standard because colleges need racial and ethnic diversity." Yet, the previous statement is a PC way of saying, "We want black people to give their own unique perspective on issues. They'll have a unique perspective, different from whites and Asians, specifically because they're black." So the example was an illustrative case of the previous statement.

Finally, let me add my own opinion of this situation. I think it's atrocious. I think colleges are engaging in racist thought by trying to increase racial diversity so that URM's can give their "own unique perspective." People are individuals, not part of a collective, and thus can't be asked to speak for others who happen to share genetic material.

[Note: Also, we know that diversity is specifically ethnic and racial because colleges lower the standard for middle and upper class blacks and hispanics, as well as poor ones. Finally, one poster mentioned that colleges also try to incorporate other types of diversity. Umm that's crapp. I don't recall colleges asking me if I was a moderate conservative or a flaming liberal or if I went to church every week or was an atheist.]

Student615

Responding very simply and selectively:

- You're saying that your original scenario actually illustrates, in a fair and reasonable way, what colleges are attempting to gain by increasing diversity? Numerous respondents here, as I've understood, saw your original point. I/we're disagreeing that you're hypothetical scenario actually represents what you think it does, in the way you think it does. The situation can't be boiled down like this. I think post #7, in particular, gave a nice response.

- Geographical diversity. Economic diversity. Diversity of interests + talents. Diversity of academic goals/interests. It's pretty well known that many schools take some or all of the above into account. A number of schools also have optional diversity essays, or spaces for additional info. If you think that your background as a flaming liberal or an avid church-goer would contribute something unique and positive to your application (and to the campus, should you choose to attend), or give cause for special evaluation, then by all means, share.

I'm not arguing for or against anything here, I just think that you're oversimplifying this situation, and you're saying "clearly" when things aren't. I understand your point, and it's not a bad one, but IMO, you're building it without much of a foundation.

In your eyes, is there a better way for colleges to be addressing this issue? You disagree with what you see as the rationale, and the process...do you disagree with the outcome?

Bourne

You compromised your argument the moment you posted that first example. For you to first assume that an opinion of one who's grown up under different circumstances doesn't give them a different perspective is ridiculous. I'm sure adcoms can differentiate through area, school, and essays -- the different circumstances under each applicant has been raised. For you to also assume that diversity and race are strictly separate is also wrong.

I do think colleges appreciate differences between applicants. Your own unique set of qualities can be shown through essays and extracurriculars. There's a reason that some people on this site use the term, "Typical Asian Ec's".

In some ways, I think perspective holds enough weight to command a spot as a determinant in the college admissions process. It's a societal assumption that colleges should base their admissions on a pure meritocracy with complete ignorance of the Social Darwinistic philosophies that will soon follow, but I challenge you -- explain to me why that's an absolute necessity? Who decided that a true meritocracy was fair? Is that just natural instinct? Why can't perspective -- a difference in perspective -- hold some weight?

Really eh? So should we include every group that has enjoyed the benefits of AA -- including women -- and classify their exploits with an asterisk because they MIGHT have enjoyed certain advantages at any point in their lives? If it counts for one, it counts for all right? Every woman at Caltech -- do we underscore their achievements? Do we classify every rich person as only being deserving because of the wealth they enjoyed as a child? Do we assume that every underprivileged person who enters the circle of poverty is there because of his original status?

It's just another bad method of stereotyping.

thirdfloor

The other point to consider is that most college admissions are holistic. Things like SAT scores and GPA can only take an application so far. Colleges look for students they believe will succeed and flourish at their campus, and for students who will actively contribute and give back to campus life. The admissions process isn't all about numbers, volunteer hours, or extra-curriculars. Trying to measure or quantify intelligence or academic success is more of an art than a science, and admissions officers are looking to balance their class out with bright, interesting, and motivated individuals.

Saying they "lower the standard" for those applicants, I think, is a slightly misguided phrase. If they lower the standard for those applicants, then the standard is similarly lowered for rural, male, first generation, international, etc. applicants. The same way a student at an elite prep school can be admitted with 10+ APs, while a student from a rural town in the midwest can be admitted with the one or two that his or her school offers, admissions officers are judging candidates in light of: their background, what they bring to the college, what they contributed to their community, and what the officers are looking to bring into the freshman class.

One of the points that essay talked about--white privilege--was essentially that if you're white, your credentials can't be challenged because of your race. While affirmative action may have helped one student gain a leg up, there's no reason to assume that every black or hispanic applicant was of a lower caliber than the average white applicant. Just like the example in the first post--a black student being called on to represent an entire race--making assumptions about the quality of all minority applicants diminishes them and deindividualizes them. I think the goal of AA (however misguided the system may be) and the goal of admissions in general is to judge each applicant on their individual merits, not necessarily in comparison to the rest of the applicants.

fabrizio

I don’t think it’s problematic. We aren’t living in an era of segregation. The days where a child who lives within walking distance of a school can be denied entrance on the basis of race are gone, thank God. Having a chance and not making it is completely different from not having a chance at all.

Newjack88

Thirdfloor gets it.

fabrizio

Translation: Thirdfloor agrees with me.