<p>I stand by my comments and nice to see that the nasty Asian racist thread has been consolidated into something called “affirmative action”. As I said before, if Harvard went 90% Asian then the better Asian students would stop applying. It has nothing to do with Jews or whites, simply quality product. No elite wants to turn into Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But without this “small boost,” the system “would be a whole lot less colorful”? To me, it doesn’t matter if the boost itself is small. If the absence of the boost results in a system that is “a whole lot less colorful,” the boost must be pretty important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer to both your questions is “no,” but I fail to see how this is supposed to be an effective counter to my earlier argument that “…American Chinese and Japanese should receive [racial preferences] at least to the same extent as Hispanics do.”</p>
<p>I caution that my argument was made in the context of nbachris’s post #151, where he defended Hispanics’ receiving racial preferences because “they have faced discrimination as a visible minority.” I argued that if that was the sufficient condition for issuing racial preferences, then surely both Chinese and Japanese deserve them as much as Hispanics do.</p>
<p>When you boldly claimed that I shouldn’t try to argue such a point because “history is not on [my] side,” I certainly was not expecting your counter to be two rhetorical questions that in my opinion don’t show why Hispanics deserve racial preferences but Chinese and Japanese do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that the boost wasn’t important. I said that the boost was small. You asked me to reconcile it and I did. In the absence of the relatively small boosts that are athletic recruitment and legacy, top universities become a lot more Asian and Jewish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you do not realize why Chinese and Japanese don’t deserve racial preferences while Hispanics do, then you don’t understand the rationale behind Affirmative Action. Maybe we should start there. What do you believe to be the purpose and rationale behind Affirmative Action?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NearL, there are many rationales for affirmative action. It’s not a matter of understanding the rationale. </p>
<p>One rationale was discussed (that minority groups experienced discrimination in the past), and that was the rationale that fabrizio responded to.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action is policies that take race, ethnicity, physical disabilities, military career,or sex into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity or increase ethnic or other forms of diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course you stand by your comments. As collegealum314 pointed out, your statements are simply a modern day rehashing of what President Lowell said some eight to nine decades ago. When you’re in the company of former Harvard Presidents, why not stand by your comments? It doesn’t even matter if they’re prejudiced!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it is a “small boost,” but it is also “important”? Hmm, “important small boost.” Whether one focuses on the “important” or the “small,” the point is clear: without this “small boost,” elite universities’ demographics could vary wildly from what they are now, even if other subjective criteria are maintained, suggesting that it is “important.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The term “affirmative action” was first used by President Kennedy in [Executive</a> Order 10925](<a href=“http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58863]Executive”>Executive Order 10925—Establishing the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity | The American Presidency Project): “The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” (emphasis added). The purpose was clear: no discrimination on the basis of the aforementeiond factors. The meaning was also quite clear: several factors should not be considered at all, including racial classification, hence “without regard.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, affirmative action does not have the same meaning that it did when President Kennedy first coined the phrase. As evidence, notice the stark contrast between the language in Executive Order 10925 and NearL’s definition of affirmative action. The former expressly forbids consideration of certain factors whereas the latter expressly requires it!</p>
<p>Now, affirmative action’s purpose is to ensure that there exists a “sufficient” quantity of so-called “underrepresented” minorities on elite campuses. Its rationale is to promote diversity.</p>
<p>
In which case that means that Jews can only be 2% of an institution’s demographics? And Asians only 4%, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh lest I be misunderstood, I agree with neither the purpose nor the rationale of affirmative action, as I understand them, anyway.</p>
<p>In any case, ensuring the “sufficient” quantity and promoting “diversity” doesn’t mean that the enrollment of Jews and Asians has to be exactly in proportion to their demographics at large. It just means that “overrepresented” is meaningless for these two groups, given that the at-large percentage is not the relevant benchmark.</p>
<p>It was a joke. It seems laughable that “diversity” would allow what amounts to 5% of the population to comprise 30%+ of the matriculated student body. Seems like we’d be missing out on a bunch of vibrant diversity.</p>
<p>Mr. Payne brings an embarrassing (for some) logic to the conversation. And the bullies and bigots amongst us, always disguised as the enlighten, hate it when it happens.</p>
<p>Well done sir.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Elite universities would have very different demographics if any subjective criteria were changed. Geographic consideration is a small boost. It would change the geographic demographics of the elite universities a lot if it were eliminated. Are we then to infer that geographic consideration is important?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Affirmative Action was implemented under the Nixon administration not Kennedy’s so your point is moot. Affirmative Action has historically been and remains a policy to ensure equal opportunity and promote diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are do you put “sufficient” in quotes? I’ve never used the word or even expressed the sentiment. I don’t think anyone here has and even if they had they’re irrelevant to my argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A disproportionately large Jewish and Asian enrollment in no way precludes diversity.</p>
<p>This has been a relatively shallow debate so far, Mr. Payne, but you already seem out of your depth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. When [url=<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker]Lowell[/url</a>] tried to use geographic preferences to decrease Jewish enrollment, he ended up getting Jewish students from those other regions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is not moot. Executive Order 10925 contains the original meaning of affirmative action. That the Right Honourable Arthur Fletcher-sama decided to pervert it into a system of quotas does not negate its original meaning and intention. And while affirmative action may claim to “ensure equal opportunity,” what it actually does is attempt to enforce equality of result.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you familiar with the idiotic “critical mass” theory? As I understand it, the theory holds that blacks need a certain level (ie. a “critical mass”) of other blacks on campus in order to feel welcome. It’s surprising that what blacks “need” in order to feel comfortable is always higher than what Native Americans “need”…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously the reincarnation of Lowell doesn’t agree with this.</p>
<p>
And a disproportionately low Black and Hispanic enrollment in no way precludes diversity. Glad we can agree.</p>
<p>
You should be eviscerating my arguments then. </p>
<p>Jewish and Asian (and South Asian) students are vastly overrepresented in elite colleges. In order to maintain the national level of diversity we should be willing to let non-Jewish Whites in on some of the action. It’s all in the name of diversity, damnit!</p>
<p>Forget about them Asians and Jews, how about AA for low income white suburban females - the most discriminated against group in America. White trash AA!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is Lowell? I never argued anything relating to a Lowell nor have I used Lowell’s argument. You seem to have me confused with another member.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Executive Order 10925 has the interpretation that you agree with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that what blacks need is higher than what Native Americans need. At Yale there’s a Native American cultural center…and an Asian one and a black one and a Jewish one. All cultural centers exist so that minority students can go to a place where they feel comfortable.</p>
<p>You seem to have a lot of pent up frustration and prejudice. It’s clear in your language and clearer in your logic and thinking. You can’t even remember who you’re arguing against at this point.</p>
<p>Stop and breathe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you can’t understand why Yale is diverse and Berkeley is not, you’re a lost cause.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You haven’t made any arguments. You rarely do. You just make attention-grabbing claims and recede back into the depths of CC until someone else superficially poignant statement that you agree with. Then you basically repeat them and add a snide comment. Sometimes you get confused and make a snide comment aimed at the person you agree with, as you did not more than a page ago with fabrizio.</p>
<p>Lowell was a former President of Harvard back in the 1920s and 1930s. He’s mentioned several times in [Malcolm</a> Gladwell’s book review](<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker), which I’ve cited in this thread. I’m surprised that you are aware that the current system of holistic admissions started in the 1920s but unaware that Lowell was the one who created it. The “reincarnation” of Lowell is the user speedo. As collegealum314 pointed out, what speedo said about Asians, the quote that you asked for and I provided, is essentially what Lowell said about Jews some eight to nine decades ago.</p>
<p>Executive Order 10925 does contain the original meaning of affirmative action. It was the first time the phrase ‘affirmative action’ was used in the United States. Unless you find an official document older than Executive Order 10925 that contains the phrase, my statement stands as fact.</p>
<p>My comments regarding “critical mass” theory were meant to point out how idiotic it is. The percentage and magnitude of Native American students at Michigan, the university whose policies were questioned in Grutter, is lower than the percentage and magnitude of black students. But if black students “need” a certain level in order to feel comfortable, why isn’t that level the same for Native Americans?</p>
<p>I do not have any pent-up frustration on this subject. Affirmative action did not “hurt” me; I had a 100% acceptance rate three years ago. I challenge you to find a single sentence of mine in this thread that demonstrates “prejudice.” That’s another bold claim, one that I doubt you’ll be able to substantiate. But please, be my guest and try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand that you wrote this to Mr Payne, but how is Berkeley not diverse? It has far, far more socioeconomic diversity than Yale does.</p>
<p>Get real there Fab. Take a walk around the Berkley campus - you might as well be in Hong Kong!</p>
<p>Might as well be in Hong Kong? That’s funny, because ethnic Chinese make up 95% of Hong Kong’s population ([Source](<a href=“http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?htmlTableID=139&excelID=&chartID=&tableID=139&ID=&subjectID=1]Source[/url]”>http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp?htmlTableID=139&excelID=&chartID=&tableID=139&ID=&subjectID=1)</a>). By contrast, Asians made up 42% of a recent Berkeley freshman class.</p>
<p>Let’s put that in perspective. Nineteen out of every twenty Hong Kongers can trace their origin back to one Asian country, China. Slightly more than two out of every five Berkeley freshmen can trace their ancestry back to the gargantuan continent that is Asia.</p>
<p>Never learned the meaning of exaggeration, did we?</p>
<p>have you ever walked around the campus? It’s certainly not diverse, and I’ll bet that lack of diversity is one reason B is no longer a destination college for top out of state apps. You’ll see a lot of Asian faces on the Penn campus too, but at least you feel like you might be in America.</p>